At issue in this appeal is whether the commencement of an offender's mandatory parole supervision (MPS) term imposed pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, is tolled when an offender is released from incarceration in the Department of Corrections (DOC) but is detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Upon service of his maximum term of incarceration, Wright was released from the DOC to ICE, where he was detained for over three years. The New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) tolled the commencement of Wright's five-year MPS term until his release from ICE custody to the community.
NERA requires both that the MPS term commence "immediately upon the defendant's release from incarceration" and that "[d]uring the term of MPS the defendant shall remain in release status in the community." Because those two requirements could not co-exist in this case, the court looked to legislative intent to resolve the ambiguity in the statute.
To combat parolee recidivism, the Legislature enacted NERA to increase prison time for offenders who commit the most serious offenses. For NERA offenses, a sentencing court must impose an eighty-five-percent parole ineligibility term and a three- or five-year MPS term, during which the offender is supervised by the Board as if on parole. The Legislature required MPS because NERA offenders likely serve the maximum sentence imposed without reaching their discretionary parole eligibility date.
The goals of parole supervision are to protect the public and assist offenders to reintegrate into society as productive individuals. Because an offender in ICE custody is neither in the community nor being supervised by the Board, the goals of NERA would be frustrated if MPS were deemed served during that time period.
In affirming the Board's decision, the court distinguished this case from State v. Njango, 247 N.J. 533 (2021), because the fundamental fairness concerns implicated in that case are not present.