NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1153-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LISA HICKS, a/k/a JUX BLACK JUX, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted July 13, 2021 – Decided July 22, 2021 Before Judges Hoffman and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Accusation No. 18-09-2173. Joseph E. Krakora. Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kimmo H. Abbasi, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Maura Murphy Sullivan, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Lisa Hicks appeals from a June 17, 2020 Law Division order denying her Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion to be released from custody and denying her alternative request for a judicial furlough. We affirm. I. In September 2018, defendant pled guilty to charges of second-degree manslaughter, N.J.S.A 2C:11-4(b)(1), and third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A 2C:35- 5(b)(3). On August 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to five and one-half years' incarceration on the manslaughter count, with eighty-five percent of that sentence to be served with parole ineligibility, pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. This sentence was concurrent to the sentence for the CDS charge. On May 15, 2020, defendant filed a motion for release from custody, citing risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant contended that her asthma, diabetes, and other medical issues put her at an increased risk of health complications or death from COVID-19. Defendant did not supply any medical records to support her application. On June 17, 2020, without conducting a hearing, the motion judge found defendant ineligible for relief under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). The judge, citing State A-1153-20 2 v. Mendel, 212 N.J. Super. 110, 113 (App. Div. 1986), correctly recognized that when considering a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion, "the [c]ourt must consider whether the defendant is subject to a term of parole ineligibility required by statute." Moreover, citing State v. Brown, 384 N.J. Super. 191, 194 (App. Div. 2006), the judge found the court "has no jurisdiction to consider a Rule 3:21- 10(b)(2) application" if a defendant is subject to a term of parole ineligibility. The motion judge also determined defendant ineligible for a judicial furlough as the situation did not rise to the "extraordinary circumstances" required for relief under State v. Boone, 262 N.J. Super. 220, 222 (Law Div. 1992). The judge found no evidence that New Jersey’s health care system and prisons were not equipped to handle COVID-19 cases. Lastly, the motion judge did not analyze defendant’s application under the factors established in State v. Priester, 99 N.J. 123 (1985). Since the judge found the court …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments