WILLIAM STOVALL v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3535-05T53535-05T5

WILLIAM STOVALL,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_________________________________________________

 

Submitted January 18, 2007 - Decided April 18, 2007

Before Judges Stern and Lyons.

On appeal from a final decision of the

Department of Corrections.

William Stovall, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa A.

Puglisi, Deputy Attorney General, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

William Stovall appeals from the final administrative determination of the Department of Corrections (DOC), entered on January 24, 2006, informing him that he is serving four sentences in New Jersey aggregating 105 years and that he "will be returned to Pennsylvania" after completing his New Jersey sentence. We treat this informational letter as a final determination of a State administrative agency and, therefore, appealable to us in the absence of an argument to the contrary. The DOC does not contend that there is no final administrative determination.

Stovall argues that the DOC violated his constitutional rights when it "negat[ed] a lawful judgment entered by the superior court." He argued that the sentence imposed by the Law Division - Camden County on August 1, 1980, which was made concurrent with the Pennsylvania sentence being served at the time of plea and sentence, has to be served simultaneously or together with the Pennsylvania sentence because he will not receive credit in Pennsylvania for the time served on the Camden County sentence in New Jersey, and he will serve a greater period in custody than contemplated by Judge Wingate at the time the Camden sentence was imposed. In other words, as the matter now stands, defendant will serve the Camden County sentence (as part of the aggregate here) and then serve time in Pennsylvania, but not concurrently as contemplated at the time of plea.

The problem was caused by virtue of the fact that, on August 17, 1980, defendant not only escaped while serving the Pennsylvania sentence to which the August 1, 1980 sentence was made concurrent, but also committed further crimes in New Jersey after he escaped. After his capture, defendant commenced service of his sentence in New Jersey rather than being returned to Pennsylvania. He is still being treated as an escapee in Pennsylvania because he has not yet been returned there, and is "accumulating escape time, which will be added to [his] sentences there." The Commonwealth Department of Corrections has advised defendant that "[a]ll the time thus far while you are serving you[r] New Jersey sentence will be added to your PA sentences as escape time."

The DOC calculates defendant's four New Jersey sentences to aggregate 105 years with thirty-one years to be served before parole eligibility. He committed the Camden offense in 1976, but then committed crimes in Pennsylvania before being returned to New Jersey under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), where on August 1, 1980, he received the fifteen to twenty-five year Camden sentence which is the focus of this appeal. Pursuant to the IAD, defendant was returned to Pennsylvania, but seventeen days later he escaped. He was arrested in Burlington County, escaped while in the custody of Mercer County officials, was re-arrested, and committed a crime while in custody after his re-arrest, all resulting in three consecutive sentences imposed after his escape from Pennsylvania.

Once he escaped from the Pennsylvania facility, defendant was responsible for the present dilemma, and the DOC is correct that the IAD was not relevant once the sentence is imposed and defendant was returned to Pennsylvania in 1980. See State v. Miller, 277 N.J. Super. 122, 127 (App. Div. 1994), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 449 (1997). However, that does not preclude New Jersey from returning defendant to Pennsylvania, which has filed a detainer here, after defendant serves the three consecutive sentences (other than the Camden sentence), and from filing a detainer there so that if he finishes serving his Pennsylvania sentence before completing the concurrent Camden County sentence, he may be returned to the custody of the DOC. See Breeden v. Dep't of Corrections, 132 N.J. 457 (1993).
Defendant may have the ability to attack the plea in the Law Division which led to the Camden County sentence in light of the intervening circumstances frustrating service of the sentence as contemplated. However, we conclude that the agreement and defendant's reasonable expectations based on the sentence imposed should be honored, and that there should be compliance with the terms of the sentence imposed in conformity with the negotiated plea. Accordingly, as the issue is essentially one dealing with a question of sentencing, as opposed to administration by the DOC, we transfer the matter to the Law Division - Camden County, so that defendant may, within sixty days of the filing of this opinion, move for a change of sentence and for an order providing for a sequence of service so that once he serves the three other consecutive New Jersey sentences, he shall be returned to Pennsylvania to serve his sentence there to which the August 1, 1980 sentence was made concurrent. See Breeden, supra, 132 N.J. at 468-71. A detainer may be filed in Pennsylvania so that if there is time or a balance on the time to be served after defendant serves the Pennsylvania sentence, he may be returned to New Jersey.

This opinion does not preclude consideration by the Law Division of any issue raised by the parties or the prosecutor. The matter is transferred to the Law Division for orders to implement this opinion and for proceedings to be conducted
therein.

On August 1, 1980, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate

15-25 year sentence "concurrent with sentence now serving in Pennsylvania & Federal sentence about to start serving."

On March 31, 1981, he was sentenced in Burlington County to twenty-five years consecutive to any sentences he was then serving. On April 21, 1982, he was sentenced in Mercer County to an aggregate of twenty-five years with twelve and-one-half years to be served before parole eligibility, consecutive to the sentences he was then serving. On May 23, 1985, defendant was sentenced in Pennsylvania to nine to twenty years "consecutive to existing sentence he is now serving or to be served." On June 17, 1994, defendant received another aggregate twenty year sentence with ten years before parole eligibility in Mercer County, to be served consecutively to the sentences he was then "presently serving." The 1994 conviction relates to offenses occurring while in custody.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-3535-05T5

April 18, 2007