STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TAMICA RUFFIN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TAMICA RUFFIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

February 14, 2014

 

Submitted February 5, 2014 Decided

 

Before Judges Simonelli and Fasciale.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 09-01-0033.

 

Eldridge Hawkins, attorney for appellant.

 

Andrew C. Carey, Acting Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brian D. Gillet, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, and Matthew P. Tallia, of counsel and on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Tamica Ruffin appeals from that part of the August 25, 2009 judgment of conviction (JOC) that sentenced her to a permanent forfeiture of public office, position, or employment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2d. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended JOC removing this part of defendant's sentence.

While driving in Edison, defendant became involved in an incident with the driver of another vehicle. Defendant, who was employed by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Division) at the time, displayed a knife during the incident and threatened the driver.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of harassment, a disorderly persons offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4; fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d; and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d. The trial judge imposed a five-year probationary term, and a 364-day term of incarceration, which was suspended. The judge also imposed a permanent forfeiture of public office, position, or employment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2:51-2d.

Defendant appealed her conviction and the forfeiture of public office part of her sentence. We affirmed and determined that because defendant committed the offenses while employed by the Division, the judge properly barred her from holding public office. State v. Ruffin, No. A-0672-09 (App. Div. Nov. 20, 2012) (slip op. at 9). Our Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for certification and remanded for reconsideration of defendant's permanent forfeiture of public office in light of State v. Hupka, 203 N.J. 222 (2010), and the standards set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2d. State v. Ruffin, 215 N.J. 482 (2013).

On remand, the State concedes that because defendant's offenses did not involve or touch her public office, position, or employment with the Division, a permanent forfeiture is improper. See Hupka, supra, 203 N.J. at 239; N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2d. The State requests that the JOC be amended to remove this part of defendant's sentence.

Defendant's sentence of a permanent forfeiture of public office, position, or employment is reversed, and this matter is remanded for entry of an amended JOC removing that part of the sentence.