Recent New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – New Jersey Restitution Law 

On June 3, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Jeffrey Walker, 478 N.J. Super. 553 (App. Div. 2024), which held that in the context of a criminal case, a defendant cannot control the sequence of victim restitution payments, and restitution should not be extinguished when a victim has not been located.  

Facts and Procedural History  

In 2011, the defendant Jeffrey Walker was indicted for multiple charges stemming from his misappropriation of health care insurance premiums from his company’s employees by keeping the proceeds instead of paying them to the insurance carrier. Walker pled guilty to an amended count of third-degree theft by illegal retention and third-degree misappropriation of entrusted property. Under the plea agreement, the State recommended a sentence of five years’ probation conditioned on defendant’s disqualification from holding future government employment, maintenance of full-time employment, and paying over $72,000 in restitution to his victims. However, by the end of his probation in 2017, Walker had only paid approximately $27,746 of the total restitution. The remaining balance of $45,595.35 was transferred to collections. In 2022, Walker learned that some of his victims had not been located, and their restitution had escheated to the State in case they were later located. 

Walker filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in November 2022, more than five years after the entry of the conviction, seeking to reallocate the escheated restitution funds to located victims or have his restitution obligation reduced. He argued that it was unjust for him to continue paying restitution for victims who could not be located. The trial judge denied the petition. .  

Timeliness of the PCR Petition  

On appeal, the first legal issue was whether Walker’s PCR petition was timely. The trial court denied the petition as untimely under Rule 3:22-12, which imposes a five-year time bar on PCR filings. Walker had filed his petition more than five years after his conviction, and the court found no “excusable neglect” to justify relaxing the time bar. Walker argued that the time limit should not apply because the factual basis for his petition—information regarding the victims’ status—was not discovered until after his probation ended. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Walker failed to exercise reasonable diligence in addressing his restitution obligations. This ruling aligns with New Jersey law, which places stringent requirements on PCR petition filings. 

Restitution Obligations in Criminal Cases under New Jersey Restitution Law 

Turning to the merits, despite the procedural defects, the Appellate Division rejected Walker’s attempt to reduce his restitution based on the status of the victims. The Appellate Division found that restitution, as part of his plea agreement, served not only as compensation for the victims but also as a tool for rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment. Allowing Walker to discharge his debt simply because some victims could not be located would undermine these goals. The Appellate Division also rejected Walker’s request to renegotiate restitution settlements directly with individual victims, stressing that criminal courts should not facilitate, much less authorize, contact between convicted offenders and their victims except through the probation department or the prosecutor’s office victim advocate. Moreover, the Appellate Division deemed a private settlement agreement to extinguish or reduce a restitution award to be contrary to public policy.  

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on New Jersey Restitution Law 

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of Walker’s PCR petition, ruling that his request to reduce his restitution obligation was both untimely and substantively flawed. The court reiterated that restitution serves multiple functions beyond victim compensation and that allowing Walker to escape his full restitution obligations would be unjust. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal restitution cannot be altered based on the defendant’s preference or convenience, especially when tied to a plea agreement. New Jersey restitution law emphasizes the importance of timely fulfilling restitution orders, which are designed to promote rehabilitation and justice for victims. 

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.