Bill Text: NJ S2169 | 2012-2013 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Establishes conditional dismissal program in municipal court; alters eligibility requirements and increases fees for existing conditional discharge and supervisory treatment programs.
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 5-2)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2012-10-04 - Substituted by A3096 (1R) [S2169 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2012-S2169-Introduced.html
FISCAL NOTE
SENATE, No. 2169
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
215th LEGISLATURE
DATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
SUMMARY
|
Synopsis: |
Establishes conditional dismissal program in municipal court; alters eligibility requirements and increases fees for existing conditional discharge and supervisory treatment programs. |
|
Type of Impact: |
General Fund and municipal revenue |
|
Agencies Affected: |
Municipal courts, Judiciary. |
|
Executive Estimate |
||||
|
Fiscal Impact |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
|
State Cost |
$348,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
State Revenue |
$2,691,489 |
$2,691,489 |
$2,691,489 |
|
|
Local Revenue Municipal Court Diversion Fund |
$1,390,515 |
$1,390,515 |
$1,390,515 |
|
|
Municipal Revenue |
$4,142,020 |
$4,124,020 |
$4,124,020 |
|
|
|
|
|||
· The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) concurs with the Executive estimate.
· The bill would establish a conditional dismissal program in municipal court similar to the existing supervisory treatment programs for pre-trial intervention and conditional discharge.
· The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) states that the bill would impact revenue in three distinct areas: Conditional Dismissal Program; Conditional Discharge Program; and Supervisory Treatment - Pretrial Intervention (PTI) Program.
· The AOC states that the bill's enactment would require extensive programming to the Judiciary's Automated Traffic System Automated Complaint System (ATS/ACS) computer system at an estimated one time cost of $348,000.
· The AOC states that the estimated amount of annual revenue to be collected from conditional dismissal would total $5,243,621; from conditional discharge would total $1,589,027; and from pretrial intervention would total $1,391,376 for total annual collections of about $8,224,020.
· Of the amount collected, $2,691,489 would be General Fund Revenue; $1,390,515 would be deposited into the Municipal Court Diversion Fund; and $4,142,020 would be paid to the municipalities.
BILL DESCRIPTION
Senate Bill No. 2169 of 2012 would establish a conditional dismissal program in municipal court similar to the existing supervisory treatment programs for pre-trial intervention and conditional discharge.
Currently, the supervisory treatment programs for pre-trial intervention and conditional discharge allow the court to suspend proceedings against eligible defendants while the defendants participate in supervisory treatment. Persons who are charged with indictable offenses (crimes of the first, second, third, or fourth degree) may be eligible for PTI pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-12 et seq. Persons charged with certain disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons drug offenses may be eligible for conditional discharge pursuant to N.J.S.2C:36A-1. If the defendant violates a term or condition of supervisory treatment, the court may enter a judgment of conviction or, where the defendant did not previously plead guilty and was not previously found guilty, resume the criminal proceedings. If the defendant successfully completes the program, the criminal charges are dismissed.
Conditional Dismissal Program. This bill establishes a similar diversion program in municipal court to be known as the conditional dismissal program. Under the bill, a defendant who is charged with a petty disorderly persons offense or disorderly persons offense may apply to enter into the conditional dismissal program, provided the person has not been previously convicted of any petty disorderly persons offense, disorderly persons offense or crime under any law of the United States, this State or any other state.
Fingerprinting Requirement. To allow sufficient time for verification of the defendant's criminal history by the prosecutor and as a condition of the application, the defendant would be required to submit to the fingerprint identification procedures as provided in R.S.53:1-15 before making an application to the court.
Conditional Dismissal Program Eligibility. Conditional dismissal would not be available to any person who has previously participated in conditional discharge, conditional dismissal, or PTI. In addition, conditional dismissal would not be available if the offense for which the person is charged involved: organized criminal or gang activity; a continuing criminal business or enterprise; a breach of the public trust by a public officer or employee; domestic violence; an offense against an elderly, disabled or minor person; an offense involving driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug; animal cruelty; or any disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense under chapter 35 or 36 of the Criminal Code. However, a person who is charged with a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offense involving drugs may apply for a conditional discharge in accordance with N.J.S.2C:36A-1.
In addition to these eligibility criteria, the court considering the application must also consider the following factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the facts surrounding the commission of the offense; the motivation, age, character and attitude of the defendant; the desire of the complainant or victim to forego prosecution; the needs and interests of the victim and the community; the extent to which the defendant's offense constitutes part of a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior; whether the offense is of an assaultive or violent nature, either in the act itself or in the possible injurious consequences of such behavior; whether the applicant's participation would adversely affect the prosecution of codefendants; whether diversion of the defendant from prosecution is consistent with the public interest; and any other factors deemed relevant by the court.
If the court approves a defendant's participation in the conditional dismissal program over the municipal prosecutor's objection, that order would, upon the request of the prosecutor, be stayed for a period of 10 days in order to permit the prosecutor to appeal the order to the Superior Court.
Program Requirements. After taking into consideration the eligibility criteria, the defendant's criminal history and the prosecutor's recommendation, the court may approve the defendant's participation in the conditional dismissal program and place the defendant under a probation monitoring status for a period of one year.
The court may also impose financial obligations and other terms and conditions in accordance with the bill. The bill permits the defendant to apply to the court for an extension of the term to allow sufficient time to pay financial obligations imposed by the court. In addition, a judge could extend the term for good cause.
If a defendant who is participating in conditional dismissal is convicted of any petty disorderly persons offense, disorderly persons offense or crime under any law of the United States, this State or any other state, or otherwise fails to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court can enter a judgment of conviction and impose a fine, penalty, or other assessment in accordance with the defendant's prior plea of guilty or prior finding of guilt.
If, at the end of the term, the defendant has not been convicted of any subsequent offense in this State or any other state, and has complied with any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court may terminate the probation monitoring and dismiss the proceedings against the defendant.
The bill provides that a conditional dismissal of petty disorderly persons or disorderly persons offenses granted pursuant to the program would not be deemed a conviction for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities, but shall be reported to the State Bureau of Identification criminal history record information files for purposes of determining future eligibility or exclusion from court diversion programs. A conditional dismissal granted would not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of determining whether a second or subsequent offense has occurred under any law of this State.
Limitation. A conditional dismissal can only be granted once with respect to any defendant.
Conditional Dismissal Fee. A person applying for admission to the conditional dismissal program would pay to the court a fee of $500. The fee would be distributed as follows: $450 payable to the treasurer of the municipality in which the municipal court is located and $50 payable to the "Municipal Court Diversion Fund" established under the bill. Monies in this new fund would be used to offset the cost of intake and monitoring services related to the conditional dismissal program. Under the provisions of the bill, the defendant would also be required to pay any restitution, costs, and other assessments that would have been imposed by law for a conviction of the offense charged.
The bill allows the defendant to apply for a waiver of the fee by reason of poverty. The court may also permit the defendant to pay the conditional dismissal fee and other assessments in installments or order other alternatives pursuant to section 1 of P.L.2009, c.317 (C.2B:12-23.1).
Municipal Court Diversion Fund. The bill establishes a new dedicated, non-lapsing fund to be known as the "Municipal Court Diversion Fund," which would be administered by the AOC. The fund would be the depository of a portion of the fee for the new conditional dismissal program and of the increased fee for the existing conditional discharge program: $50 from each $350 fee for conditional discharge and $50 from each $500 conditional dismissal fee. Monies in the fund would be used to offset the cost of intake and monitoring services for defendants under the conditional discharge program or conditional dismissal program.
Conditional Discharge. The bill amends section d. of N.J.S.2C:36A-1 to increase the fee for conditional discharge from $75 to $350. Currently, the statute provides that the $75 fee is used to defray the costs of juror compensation. Under the bill, the monies would no longer be used to defray these expenses and instead would be distributed as follows: $300 payable to the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey for deposit into the General Fund; and $50 to the newly created Municipal Court Diversion Fund.
Under the current law, a person is not eligible for conditional discharge if that person has committed a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons drug offense under any law of the United States, this State or any other state. The bill amends section a. of N.J.S.2C:36A-1 to also provide that a person who has participated in any supervisory treatment program or the conditional dismissal program established under the bill would not be eligible for participation in the conditional discharge program.
Supervisory Treatment (PTI). Currently under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-12 PTI supervisory treatment may only occur once and any person who has previously received supervisory treatment is not eligible for subsequent supervisory treatment. This bill expands this limitation by providing that a person who has participated in either conditional dismissal or conditional discharge would not be eligible for PTI.
This bill increases the current fee for PTI from $75 to $350. Currently, similar to the conditional discharge statute this $75 fee is used to defray the costs of juror compensation. The monies from this fee would be paid to the State and would no longer be used to defray the cost of juror compensation.
Expungement. The bill amends N.J.S.2C:52-6 concerning expungement of arrests not resulting in conviction to allow for expungement of charges dismissed pursuant to conditional discharge or conditional dismissal 6 months after the entry of the order of dismissal.
Effective date. This bill takes effect 120 days after enactment, and applies to any person who commits a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense on or after the effective date of the bill.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Revenue
The AOC states that the bill would impact revenue in three distinct areas:
- Conditional Dismissal Program;
- Conditional Discharge Program; and
- Supervisory Treatment - Pretrial Intervention Program.
Conditional Dismissal Program:
The AOC states that the bill would require an individual applying for admission to the conditional dismissal program to pay a $500 fee, which would be distributed with $450 payable to the municipality in which the municipal court is located and $50 payable to the Municipal Court Diversion Fund created by the bill.
The AOC notes that according to data collected from the Criminal Division's case management and information system (PROMIS/Gavel), there were a total of 1,461 Superior Court defendants convicted of only disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses in calendar year 2011. In addition, based on data collected from the Municipal Division's ATS/ACS, there are on average 56,518 defendants found guilty annually of disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses in the Municipal Courts for a total of approximately 57,979 (1,461 + 56,518) defendants convicted of only disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses annually Statewide.
The AOC states that the Judiciary does not collect all of the data regarding the program's disqualifiers. For example, the Judiciary cannot identify the percentage of disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons defendants who previously received a conditional discharge or was admitted into a PTI program. Further, the Judiciary is unable to identify the percentage of cases which involved organized crime or gang activity; involved a continuing criminal business or enterprise; involved a breach of the public trust by a public officer or employee; involved domestic violence; involved an offense against an elderly, disabled or minor person; involved an offense involving driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug; involved animal cruelty; etc. In this regard, the Judiciary is unable to estimate the number of defendants who would be eligible for participation in the conditional dismissal program or the number who would apply for participation in the program.
The AOC states that if all 57,979 of the defendants convicted of only disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses annually statewide applied for participation in the conditional dismissal program, a total of $28,989,500 (57,979 x $500) in fees would be generated, with $26,090,550 (57,979 x $450) payable to the state's municipalities and $2,898,950 (57,979 x $50) payable to the Municipal Court Diversion Fund.
However, any amount of revenue projected based on the number of applications would have to be adjusted for the number of defendants whose fees would be reduced or eliminated due to indigence. Although the Judiciary cannot provide a reliable estimate of the number of defendants that would be considered indigent, data collected from the Criminal Division's case management and information system (PROMIS/Gavel) indicate that 906 or 62 percent of the 1,461 defendants convicted only of disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses in the Superior Court during calendar year 2011 were represented by either the Public Defender's Office or by pool attorneys.
The AOC notes that while the number of defendants represented by the Public Defender's Office or by pool attorneys is not considered a qualified indicator of a defendant's qualification for indigence regarding the program's application fee, it is possible that as many as 62 percent of the eligible defendants could apply to have those fees waived. If 62 percent of the 57,979 defendants applied for participation in the conditional dismissal program qualified as indigent, there would be a decrease in fee payments of approximately $17,973,490 ($28,989,500 x 0.62), with $11,016,010 ($28,989,500 - $17,973,490) remaining. Of this amount, $9,914,409 would be payable to the state's municipalities and $1,101,601 would be payable to the Municipal Court Diversion Fund.
The AOC states that although a municipality would receive $450 of each application fee paid, it should be noted that the municipalities would lose revenue for each defendant participating in the conditional discharge program as judges would not be able to continue to assess fines. The bill specifies that, "the defendant shall also be required to pay any restitution, costs, and other assessments that would have been imposed by law for a conviction of the offense charged." Based on this language, judges would be able to impose restitution, costs and assessments as is currently done when a defendant is convicted of these offenses. As a result, monies going into state funds, such as Victims of Crime Compensation Agency (VCCA) and Safe Streets, would likely not be diminished. In addition, municipalities would not lose revenues currently yielded from assessed court costs. However, based on the language in the bill, judges would not be able to continue to assess fines.
The AOC notes that unless otherwise required by statute, fine amounts imposed against defendants for disorderly or petty disorderly persons cases are forwarded by the court, upon payment, to the local municipality. Therefore, municipalities would lose potential fine revenue, as judges would not be authorized to fine defendants placed in the conditional dismissal program. Fine amounts vary greatly. While some statutes cite a specific amount or range, most are silent. Disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses statutes not specifying an amount or range are covered under N.J.S. 2C:43-3, which sets the maximum disorderly persons fine amount at $1,000 and the maximum petty disorderly persons fine amount at $500. Unless otherwise required, Judges can impose an amount up to those maximums. Data obtained from the Judiciary's ATS/ACS computer system indicates that the average fine imposed in calendar year 2011 was $262. Therefore, for every matter that receives a conditional dismissal, a municipality would lose an estimated $262 in fine revenue.
As a result, municipalities would only net an additional $188 ($450 - $262) for each defendant placed on conditional dismissal, while the Municipal Court Diversion Fund would receive $50 for every case. Based on 57,979 cases, and factoring in the 62 percent rate for indigent cases, the projected total increase in revenue to the municipalities would be $4,142,020 (57,979 x 0.38 x $188).
Conditional Discharge Program:
The AOC states that the bill would increase the application fee for conditional discharge from $75 to $350. Of the new amount, $50 would be deposited into the newly established Municipal Court Diversion Fund, while the remaining $300 would be deposited into the General Fund. Based on data generated from the Judiciary's ATS/ACS computer system, an estimated 15,206 conditional discharges are ordered annually resulting in estimated total fees of $5,322,100 ($350 x 15,206). Of this amount, $760,300 ($50 x 15,206) would be payable to the Municipal Court Diversion Fund to be used to offset probation's monitoring costs and $4,561,800 ($300 x 15,206) would be payable to the General Fund.
The AOC states that any amount of revenue projected based on the number of discharges ordered would have to be adjusted for the number of defendants whose fees would be reduced or eliminated due to indigence. Although the Judiciary cannot provide a reliable estimate of the number of defendants applying for a conditional discharge that would be considered indigent, if the 62 percent estimate used as the indigent multiplier in the Conditional Dismissal Program analysis above were also applied to the Conditional Discharge Program, then approximately 9,428 (15,206 x 0.62) of the defendants applying for participation in the conditional discharge program would be qualified as indigent. The result would be a reduction of $3,299,702 ($5,322,100 x 0.62) to the total fee payments, adjusting the total of the $350 fee collectible to $2,022,398 ($5,322,100 - $3,299,702). Of that amount, $288,914 would be deposited into the Municipal Court Diversion Fund and $1,733,484 would be deposited into the General Fund.
The AOC notes that as current Statute requires the existing $75 fee to be "payable to the court for use by the State", the full amount of the current $75 fee is already being deposited into the General Fund. In this regard, increased revenue to the General Fund as a result of this bill would only be $225 per collectible fee ($300 - $75), resulting in a increase in fees deposited into the General Fund of $1,300,113 ($225 x 15,206 x 0.38).
Supervisory Treatment - Pretrial Intervention Program:
The AOC states that the bills would increase the fee for admission to the Supervisory Treatment - PTI Program from $75 to $350. The entire $350 would be deposited into the General Fund. Data collected from the Criminal Division's case management and information system (PROMIS/Gavel) indicates there were 10,242 applications of admission into PTI during calendar year 2011. This would yield a maximum of $3,584,700 ($350 x 10,242) for deposit into the General Fund. As the full amount of the current $75 fee is already deposited into the General Fund, the increased revenue to the General Fund as a result of this bill would be only $275 per fee ($350 - $75), resulting in a increase in fees deposited into the General Fund of $2,816,550 ($275 x 10,242).
However, any amount of revenue projected based on the number of applications for admission into the program would have to be adjusted for the number of defendants whose fees would be reduced or eliminated due to indigence. Although the Judiciary cannot provide a reliable estimate of the number of defendants that would be considered indigent, data collected from the Criminal Division's case management and information system (PROMIS/Gavel) indicate that 5,183 or 50.6 percent of the 10,242 defendants who applied for entry into a PTI program in calendar year 2011 were represented by the Public Defender's Office or by pool attorneys. While the number of defendants represented by the Public Defender's Office or by pool attorneys is not be considered a qualified indicator of a defendant's qualification for indigence regarding the program's application fee, it is possible that as many as 50.6 percent of the eligible applicants could apply to have those fees waived. If 50.6 percent of the 10,242 applicants who applied for admission into a Supervisory Treatment - PTI Program qualified as indigent, there would be a decrease in fee payments of approximately $1,813,858 ($3,584,700 x 0.506), with $1,770,842 ($3,584,700 - $1,813,858) remaining to be deposited into the General Fund. Of the $1,770,842, only the $1,391,376 ($2,816,550 x 0.494) portion attributable to the $275 increase to the fee would be an increase in revenue deposited to the General Fund, as the current $75 fee is already being deposited into the General Fund.
Revenue Summary:
The AOC states that based on the above assumptions, the Judiciary anticipates that the proposed legislation would create additional revenue for deposit/payment as follows:
|
|
Amount Deposited into Municipal Court Diversion Fund |
Increase in Amount Paid to Municipalities |
Increase in Amount Deposited into General Fund |
TOTAL |
|
Conditional Dismissal |
$1,101,601 |
$4,142,020 |
n/a |
$5,243,621 |
|
Conditional Discharge |
$288,914 |
n/a |
$1,300,113 |
$1,589,027 |
|
Pretrial Intervention |
n/a |
n/a |
$1,391,376 |
$1,391,376 |
|
TOTAL |
$1,390,515 |
$4,142,020 |
$2,691,489 |
$8,224,024 |
Expenditures:
The AOC states that the bill's enactment would require extensive programming to the Judiciary's ATS/ACS computer system at an estimated one time cost of $348,000. Due to the requisite changes, it is anticipated that a minimum of six months would be required before the necessary system modifications would be in place.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
The OLS concurs with the Executive estimate.
|
Section: |
Judiciary |
|
Analyst: |
Anne Raughley Principal Fiscal Analyst |
|
Approved: |
David J. Rosen Legislative Budget and Finance Officer |
This fiscal note has been prepared pursuant to P.L.1980, c.67 (C.52:13B-6 et seq.).
