The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification in three more cases. Two of those are criminal appeals, each involving sentencing issues. The third case presents an issue under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, et seq. (“the Spill Act”).
Taking the three cases in docket number order, the Spill Act case is US Masters Residential Property (USA) Fund v. New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection. The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Among other issues, did claimant sustain its burden of showing that it was entitled to reimbursement under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 to -23.24?” An Administrative Law Judge, in an arbitration decision, denied plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement from a compensation fund that was established under the Spill Act. A two-judge Appellate Division panel affirmed that ruling in a per curiam unpublished opinion.
In State v. Cuff, the question presented is “Was defendant entitled to a new trial because of the omission on the verdict sheet of the charge of second-degree kidnapping, and did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences?” According to the unpublished per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division, defendant was indicted for 55 crimes arising out of five robberies and a vehicle stop. A jury convicted him of 19 of those crimes, including robbery, kidnapping, burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery “and/or” kidnapping, and weapons offenses. The Law Division sentenced defendant to 98 years in prison.
On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and sentences, except for two convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery “and/or” kidnapping. The panel vacated the convictions on those two counts and remanded for further proceedings.
Finally, State v. Rodriguez presents the following question: “Can a defendant who is convicted of fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26, serve the 180-day minimum sentence intermittently, or must the 180 days be served without interruption?” This matter actually involves five back-to-back appeals, as described in the Appellate Division’s opinion, which was published at 454 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2018). The Law Division ordered that defendants serve their sentence intermittently, rather than consecutively. The State appealed, but the Appellate Division affirmed. Now the Supreme Court will be heard on the issue.