New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
Megan’s Law registrants must remain offense-free for 15 years following their conviction for the offense underlying their registration requirement. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently gave some important guidance concerning what qualifies as a conviction for Megan’s Law purposes.
When he was fifteen years old in 1999, J.A. was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and was then required to register pursuant to Megan’s Law. In 2000 and 2001, J.A., while still a juvenile, J..A. was adjudicated delinquent of receiving stolen property and second-degree robbery, respectively. He served four years at a juvenile facility for the robbery charge, was released in 2004, and remained offense-free thereafter. Fifteen years later, he applied to terminate his Megan’s Law registration obligation, but was denied because the trial court found that he did not remain offense-free after his original juvenile adjudication, which the trial court viewed as a conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Everyone agreed that J.A. was not a danger to the community, and therefore satisfied the second prong of the Megan’s Law removal test. The issue was whether or not the original juvenile adjudication that led to registration was a “conviction” for Megan’s Law purposes, and the Supreme Court found that it was not. Thus, because J.A. was not “convicted” of an offense in 1999, his subsequent juvenile adjudications could not bar removal.
On the same day, the Supreme Court issued Matter of R.H., which contains a more elaborate discussion of these issues. RH and another registrant, T.L., were both adjudicated delinquent as juveniles of sex offenses and required to register. R.H. moved to terminate his registration obligation prior to the expiration of the 15-year period, but was denied for that reason. T.L. was convicted of a petty disorderly persons offense while he was on Megan’s, and his removal motion was denied because of this conviction. As to both registrants, the Court held that the minimum 15-year offense-free period applies to those prosecuted as adults and convicted of one of the sex offenses listed in the relevant statute, but not to registrants who were originally required to register because of a juvenile adjudication from the Family Court. Because R.H. and T.L. were both required to register because of juvenile adjudications as opposed to adult convictions, the 15-year offense-free prong of the Megan’s test did not apply to them. Thus, R.H. did not have wait 15 years to apply for removal, and T.L. could not be barred from removal because of a subsequent conviction. The Court stressed, however, that both R.H. and T.L. still had to demonstrate that they did not present any danger to the community (the second prong of the Megan’s test) before a removal motion could be granted. However, it is clear that registrants whose obligations stem from a juvenile adjudication and who do not have any other issues that may bar relief can apply for removal before reaching age 18.
A somewhat similar issue arises in the context of parole violations. An applicant for removal from CSL/PSL must show that they have not committed a crime for fifteen years following their last conviction. However, many such individuals have been found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of their parole. Parole violations can be handled in one of two ways. They can be disposed of administratively through a parole board hearing process, or they can be formally charged as new criminal offenses with the case being heard in the Superior Court. The difference is crucial since, under current law, the finding of a violation as a result of the administrative procedure is not considered a new offense or conviction, whereas a finding of guilt in a Superior Court proceeding is a new offense/conviction which bars relief from Megan’s registration, and re-starts the fifteen-year period that must transpire before the defendant can seek termination of their supervision obligations. Most parole violations are handled administratively, and therefore are not new offenses or convictions that bar relief.
However, multiple parole violations, even if handled administratively, can still pose problems and issues barring termination of CSL/PSL obligations. In addition to having fifteen “clean” years, removal applicants must still show that they are not a danger to the community. A series of parole violations – particularly if they are for the same type of conduct that led to the original conviction – will undoubtedly raise questions concerning whether the defendant has satisfied this prong of the removal test. Defendants typically show that they are not a threat to the community by submitting a psychological evaluation with their moving papers which concludes that they were at low risk or very low risk of re-offending. However, even if the psychological evaluation so concludes, a prosecutor can still challenge the removal motion based on the number and nature of the violations, and a judge can use them as a basis for finding that the defendant is dangerous. This can lead to an evidentiary hearing based on the motion, or a denial of the relief sought. An experienced Megan’s Law or parole supervision for life attorney will know how to respond effectively to such issues.
James S. Friedman, Esq., is a Megan’s Law attorney based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Mr. Friedman represents defendants seeking to terminate their Megan’s Law and CSL/PSL obligations in the Superior Court in all New Jersey counties. If you are on Megan’s Law and CSL or PSL and want to get off, contact Mr. Friedman immediately.
