In State v. Matrongolo, ___ N.J. Super ___, ___ (App. Div. 2024) (slip op. at 21-22), the Appellate Division held that individuals convicted of a disorderly persons (DP) or petty disorderly persons offense (PDP) are not categorically excluded from Recovery Court (formerly known as Drug Court) under Track Two based on the classification of their conviction. See Admin. Off. of the Cts., N.J. Statewide Recovery Court Manual 3-4 (2022 Manual).

In Matrongolo, the defendant was initially charged with third-degree attempt to defraud the administration of a drug test, N.J.S.A. 2C:36-10(d), and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1), and fourth-degree possession of a device to defraud the administration of a drug test, N.J.S.A. 2C:36-10(e). Id. at ___ (slip op. at 4). Under a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a)(2), a PDP offense, in exchange for dismissal of the criminal charges and with the understanding that she would apply for Recovery Court. Ibid. However, the trial court denied her application, reasoning that “Recovery Court is not a sentencing option for those convicted of a DP or PDP offense, because neither are ‘crimes’ as defined in our Criminal Code.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 4-5). The defendant subsequently tragically passed away at age thirty-one due to a suspected drug overdose. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 7).

The Appellate Division found the matter justiciable despite the defendant’s death and reversed. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8, 21-22). The Appellate Division explained that “Recovery Court is not a creature of the Legislature, but of the judiciary, and was developed in accordance with the Court’s exclusive authority under the New Jersey Constitution to administer the courts through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Id. at ___ (slip op. at 11). Therefore, while Recovery Court is a sentencing option, rooted in legislative enactment, it is “a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division,” and its eligibility criteria are a matter of judicial policy expressed through AOC Directive and the Manual. Ibid.

“Through a highly specialized team process within the existing Superior Court structure, the Recovery Court judge, attorneys, probation representatives, and treatment professionals work together to support and monitor a participant’s recovery.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 3) (quoting Admin. Off. of the Cts., N.J. Statewide Recovery Court Manual 3-4 (2022 Manual). The AOC provided two tracks for admissibility into Recovery Court; Track one is available to defendants “subject to a presumption of incarceration” who are eligible for “special probation” under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, and Track Two is available to defendants who faced a sentence to regular probation or fewer than 365 days in a county jail. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 13-16). The Appellate Court found no law, decision, or directive “that adds to the Track Two criteria the condition that the person be sentenced for a crime.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 18). Moreover, the Court found that “[a]s the Manual makes clear, early intervention is encouraged and the court may admit a person to Recovery Court without a guilty plea in place.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 19).

In this case, the defendant was charged with third- and fourth-degree crimes and could have applied to Recovery Court based on these charges. Ibid. “As the Manual makes clear, a defendant may plea bargain to become eligible for Recovery Court, conveying an intent to permit more—not fewer—applicants.” Ibid. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant reduced her charge to a PDP offense, and it would be “inconsistent with the spirit of Recovery Court that someone who is eligible for Track Two based on their initial charges would become ineligible because the State agrees to accept a plea to a lesser charge.” Ibid. The Appellate Court also found unpersuasive the State’s arguments that permitting DP and PDP offenders to enter Recovery Court would unduly expand eligibility to municipal court defendants, and rejected the argument that defendants not subject to incarceration would have no incentive to succeed in Recovery Court. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 19-20).

Recovery Court has played a positive role in improving the lives of its participants in New Jersey and our community. If you are facing criminal charges you may be entitled to participate in Recovery Court and should immediately reach out to our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your criminal case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey