discussing how origins of subsection b demonstrate that “[it] is addressed to the problem of a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a person who is already serving a term, under a sentence imposed for an earlier offense” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- discussing how origins of subsection b demonstrate that “[it] is addressed to the problem of a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a person who is already serving a term, under a sentence imposed for an earlier offense” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
- discussing inapplicability of gap-time under subsection b for time spent on defendant's subsequent-in-time convictions when defendant's connection with earlier unsolved sexual assault offense was utterly unknown to State
- N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b) "is addressed to the problem of a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a person who is already serving a term under a sentence imposed for an earlier offense." (internal citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)
- applying de novo standard in gap-time credit case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Law Division (1) for the entry of an order (a) vacating the entire award of 2,145 days of gap-time credits originally granted on September 18, 2009 and (b) remanding defendant L.H. to serve the sentence imposed on that date without any credit for gap time; and (2) for the entry of a corrected judgment of conviction reflecting no days of gap-time credit.