RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3007-16T6
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C.W.,1
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted May 25, 2017 – Decided June 8, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino, Nugent and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 17-
04-0580.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Laura B. Lasota, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).
Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella,
Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; John C.
Tassini, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
1
We use initials to protect the identity and privacy of the alleged
victim, a minor, who resides in close proximity to defendant.
In a prior appeal by the State in this matter, we vacated the
trial court's order denying the prosecution's motion for the
pretrial detention of defendant. See State v. C.W., ____ N.J.
Super. ____, A-2415-16 (App. Div. March 21, 2013). In doing so,
we specifically noted that the record was unclear regarding the
details of defendant's prior juvenile record and his tier
classification under Megan's Law. Id., slip op. at 47-48. We
also noted that the trial judge had lacked at the time of his
original decision the benefit of the Acting Administrative
Director's March 2, 2017 guidance memorandum clarifying the
significance of the phrasing of a recommendation by Pretrial
Services commonly utilized before that guidance memorandum was
issued. Id. at 46-47. We therefore remanded the matter for
reconsideration by the trial court, affording the parties and the
court the opportunity to "develop or clarify the record further,
as may be feasible and fair under the circumstances." Id. at 49-
50.
Following our remand, the trial court conducted proceedings
at which the State presented numerous additional exhibits
containing, among other things, detailed information concerning
defendant's juvenile history and his Megan's Law tier
classification. Defendant countered with several additional
exhibits, including two letters of recommendation. After
2 A-3007-16T6
considering that additional material and the competing arguments
of the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial court concluded
in a supplemental written decision on March 31, 2017 that the
State had met its burden under N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 and N.J.S.A.
2A:162-18(a)(1) by clear and convincing evidence that defendant
should be detained before trial, because no amount of monetary
bail, non-monetary conditions, or a combination of monetary bail
conditions will reasonably assure defendant's appearance in court
when required; the protection or safety of any other person in the
community; and that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to
obstruct the criminal justice process. In the meantime, a grand
jury issued an indictment against defendant charging him with
attempted sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and
attempted endangering the welfare of a child. The indictment
suffices to satisfy the State's burden of showing probable cause
for the predicate offense, which is an ingredient of the statutory
detention analysis. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(2).
Following the trial court's detention ruling, defendant filed
an appeal, which the State has opposed. In his brief, defendant
included a procedural argument that his counsel had not been
afforded sufficient time to review the State's exhibits before the
remand hearing. Consequently, we temporarily remanded the matter
to the trial court to afford defense counsel a further opportunity
3 A-3007-16T6
to present evidence and arguments. We have been advised in a May
18, 2017 letter from the trial court that defendant's trial counsel
has stated on the record that "he had sufficient opportunity to
investigate on behalf of his client, and he had nothing to add as
a material bearing regarding detention of his client." The State,
in response, commended any further decision to the trial court's
discretion. Thereafter, the trial court reaffirmed its earlier
ruling for the reasons it had previously set forth.
Having now duly considered the respective arguments of
counsel in their written submissions on the present appeal, we
affirm the trial court's detention order for the sound reasons
expressed in its oral decision and its sealed written decision
dated March 31, 2017. The trial court's decision does not
represent an abuse of discretion, in light of the additional
information presented to it on remand, and comports with the
applicable law. See C.W., supra, ___ N.J. Super. at ___, slip op.
at 30 (noting the standard of review).
Affirmed.
4 A-3007-16T6