New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Jessica Lunsford Act

On August 19, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Arthur F. Wildgoose, a question of first impression under the Jessica Lunsford Act, L. 2014, c. 7, § 1 (codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2). The decision addressed key constitutional issues regarding prosecutorial discretion in plea negotiations.

Facts and Procedural History in the Jessica Lunsford Act Case

Defendant Arthur F. Wildgoose was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and aggravated sexual assault of a twelve-year-old, offenses governed by the Jessica Lunsford Act. In 2015, Wildgoose engaged in a relationship with a minor, ultimately leading to sexual assault. He was indicted in March 2016, and the prosecutor offered a post-indictment plea deal that included a twenty-five-year sentence with eighteen years of parole ineligibility. Wildgoose rejected this plea and went to trial, resulting in a conviction on both counts. His post-conviction relief (PCR) petition challenged the constitutionality of the Jessica Lunsford Act Guidelines, specifically the “graduated plea” provision that automatically increased the minimum post-indictment plea offer.

Legal Issues Under the Jessica Lunsford Act

The Jessica Lunsford Act prescribes a mandatory twenty-five-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of thirteen. The mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by up to ten years, but only by the prosecutor through a plea agreement. A judge may not impose a prison term less than the one agreed to by the prosecutor.

The Attorney General Guidelines in New Jersey employ a graduated system differentiating between pre- and post-indictment plea offers. Under the guidelines, prosecutors are expressly prohibited from tendering the most lenient plea offer allowed under the Jessica Lunsford Act–a ten-year sentence reduction–once a defendant is indicted. The central legal issue on appeal was whether the Guidelines, which limit the leniency of plea deals after indictment, violated a defendant’s constitutional rights.

The Appellate Division considered whether the Jessica Lunsford Act and Guidelines as applied to the defendant could have denied him “‘fair proceedings leading to a just outcome.” The Appellate Division referenced the principles established in State v. A.T.C., 239 N.J. 450 (2019), which required a prosecutor to present a statement of reasons explaining its decision to depart from the twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence specified in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a). Extending this reasoning, the Appellate Division required prosecutors to explain the timing of their plea offers, particularly when withholding a pre-indictment offer triggers harsher post-indictment terms under the Jessica Lunsford Act.

Conclusion on the Jessica Lunsford Act Case

The court vacated the PCR judge’s decision and remanded the case for further fact-finding. It emphasized the need for transparency in prosecutorial decisions under the Jessica Lunsford Act, requiring explanations when pre-indictment plea offers are not made. This decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that prosecutorial discretion is not exercised arbitrarily and sets a precedent for future cases involving the Jessica Lunsford Act in New Jersey.

Contact Us for Expert Legal Assistance

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact 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 case at 862-315-7929.

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