Jail credit in Municipal Court
Rule 3:21-8 states that “[the defendant
shall receive credit on the term of a custodial sentence for any time served in
custody in jail or in a state hospital between arrest and the imposition of
sentence.” These credits for pre-sentence custody are referred to as “jail
credits.” State v. Rawls, 219 N.J. 185, 192 (2014). “When the Rule
preconditions for the application of jail credits are satisfied, the award of
such credits is mandatory, not discretionary.” State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011), 208 N.J. at 37.
In
Hernandez the Court departed from the traditional attribution analysis
for determining the correct application of jail credit. The court clarified
that defendants are entitled to precisely what the Rule provides: credits
against all sentences for any time served in custody in jail or in a state
hospital between arrest and the imposition of sentence on each case. Hernandez,
supra, 208 N.J. at 28 (quoting R. 3:21-8).
The
court applied credits to the Hernandez defendants in a manner that maximized
the effect of the credits on their aggregate imprisonment terms and parole
ineligibility periods. Id. at 46-49.2 [As interpreted by Hernandez, Rule 3:21-8
requires that a defendant receive jail credit even though the charges are not
directly responsible for his or her incarceration. Rawls, supra,
219 N.J. at 194. The court reasoned that such an application of jail credit
best comports with the policy goals of facilitating fundamental fairness,
discouraging gamesmanship by prosecutors and defendants, and promoting
uniformity in sentencing. Hernandez, supra, 208 N.J. at 46-49.
In
Hernandez, the court also discussed the previous holdings in Black and
Carreker. Id. at 42-45. The court held that the facts of those
cases were distinguishable because they concerned matters in which the
defendants were seeking jail credit while already serving custodial sentences. Id.
at 45.
“Jail credits are ‘day-for-day credits.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Buncie v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super.
214, 217 (App. Div. 2005), certif. denied, 186 N.J. 606 (2006)). Jail credits
apply to the “ ‘front end’ of a defendant's sentence.
The NJ Supreme Court
recognizes that jail credits “serve important policy goals.” Rawls, supra,
219 N.J. at 193. Specifically, jail credits further equal protection and
fundamental fairness considerations by preventing the “double punishment” of
defendants who spend time in custody prior to sentencing. Ibid. (quoting Hernandez,
supra, 208 N.J. at 36). Jail credits thereby prevent indigent defendants
who cannot afford to post bail from serving greater time in custody than
wealthier defendants. Ibid. In addition, jail credits discourage
prosecutors from manipulating trial dates and promote uniformity in sentencing.
Hernandez, supra, 208 N.J. at 48-49.
In Hernandez, supra, the Court held
that, under Rule 3:21-8, defendants are entitled to jail credit “against all
sentences ‘for any time served in custody in jail or in a state hospital
between arrest and the imposition of sentence’ on each case.” Id. at 28
(emphasis added) (quoting R. 3:21-8). “Therefore, as interpreted by Hernandez,
Rule 3:21-8 requires that a defendant receive jail credit even though the
charges are not directly responsible for his or her incarceration.” Rawls,
supra, 219 N.J. at 194.
