“Crime Spree” Convictions No Longer Eligible for Expungement in New Jersey
In order to expunge a felony conviction in New Jersey, an individual must not have been convicted of any “prior or subsequent crimes.” Thus, an individual cannot expunge a felony conviction if they have previously or subsequently been convicted of a felony conviction. While it is clear that individuals who have been convicted or sentenced for multiple felonies on multiple dates are not eligible for an expungement, questions nonetheless remain. For example, what about individuals who have multiple felony convictions, but were sentenced on the same date? Similarly, what about individuals who have been convicted for felonies that occurred within a relatively close period of time to each other (often referred to as a “crime spree”).
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently released a decision dealing with whether “crime sprees” are eligible for expungement under the current version of the expungement statute. The decision involved two cases: In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of J.S. (A-84-13), and In the Matter of the Expungement of the Criminal Records of G.P.B. (A-2-14).
The Court began its opinion by reviewing the facts of the cases before it. The J.S. case dealt with a person who had been dealing a controlled dangerous substance (or, “CDS”) (marijuana to be specific). He was arrested after selling small quantities to an undercover police officer on two separate occasions over a five day period, 25.5 grams on the first occasion, 100 on the second. In typical fashion, he was charged with a number of crimes (including possession with intent at different degrees, and possession with intent in a park zone). He eventually pled guilty to two of the charges, a fourth degree possession with intent relative to the first sale, and a third degree possession with intent relative to the second. He was sentenced to a term of three years noncustodial probation. After completing his sentence and waiting five years, he moved for expungement, arguing that the court should treat his two felony convictions as one, since they occurred within a close period of time to each other.
The G.P.B., on the other hand, case dealt with a business owner who, in conjunction with another person, tried to offer illegal gifts to the Mayor and two members of the town council in a local municipality in an effort to get them to vote in favor of a resolution awarding a contract to his company. He spoke to the mayor one day, and to the two councilmen the next. He was charged with four offenses: one of third-degree conspiracy, and three of third-degree attempting to offer illegal gifts. He ultimately pled to all four charges, and was sentenced to 30 days of imprisonment to be served on weekends, 100 hours of community service, and a $10,000 fine. After completing the sentence and waiting ten years, he likewise moved for expungement. He focused on the fact that the events were part of an ongoing conspiracy (and were charged as such) and so argued that they constituted a single crime.
With these facts as background, the Court, in a opinion for the five justice majority by Justice Patterson, began its analysis by reviewing the statutory provisions for expungement going back to 1931, and the case law, limited as it was, that interpreted the older statutes. It then moved to the current statute, which was enacted in 1979 (in connection with the reorganization of the criminal laws of the State and the adoption of Title 2C), and noted that in this version the statutory language was rewritten. Where the prior statute precluded expungement where there was a “subsequent conviction,” in the current statute the language was changed to limit expungement only to a person “who has not been convicted of any prior or subsequent crime.” The Court emphasized that in this version, the phrase “prior or subsequent” was not used in connection with convictions (as it was in the prior statute), but rather now qualifies the crime. The Court then held:
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) expresses the Legislature’s intent to permit expungement of a single conviction arising from multiple offenses only if those offenses occurred as part of a single, uninterrupted criminal event. Using the singular rather than the plural form, the statute authorizes expungement of “a crime under the laws of this State” — not one or more crimes closely related in circumstances or in time. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a). With the expansive adjective “any,” N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) excludes petitioners who have been “convicted of any prior or subsequent crime.” The statute’s import is clear: no matter how many offenses are resolved by one conviction, expungement is available only for a single “crime” and is unavailable if another “crime” took place before or after the offense to be expunged. See Ross, supra, 400 N.J. Super. at 122 (noting that Legislature’s choice to modify “crime,” rather than “conviction,” with adjectives “prior” and “subsequent,” supports conclusion that expungement is unavailable for crimes committed on separate occasions).
Applying this standard to the cases before it, the Court held that neither petitioner was entitled to expungement. In the J.S. case, each sale was a discrete crime, not part of a single, uninterrupted criminal event. In G.P.B. case, the Court acknowledged that the events were part of a continuing conspiracy, but noted that ultimately each of the communications occurred at different times and involved separate telephone calls, and so while related constituted separate criminal events.
The Court concluded by observing that the public policy questions of whether expungement should be broader than what this opinion permitted, questions that were noted by the dissenters, were best addressed to the Legislature, which of course is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.
If you have questions as to how your criminal convictions would be treated for expungement purposes, contact Randolph H. Wolf. Randolph H. Wolf has been successfully representing clients in obtaining expungements for over 30 years. Contact us today for a free consultation.
About Post Author
