Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES HEMPHILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________________
Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided:
Before Judges Stern, A. A. Rodríguez and Collester.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County,
93-05-0373.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth Bove Carlucci, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Thomas F. Kelaher, Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel; William Kyle Meighan, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
A. A. RODRÍGUEZ, P.J.A.D.
One of the issues presented in this appeal is whether defendant, James Hemphill,
is entitled to receive credit for time spent in custody, on this charge,
in the United Kingdom. We hold that defendant is entitled to such credit
for this period.
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.
[R. 3:21-8.]
The credit is only permissible for a period of incarceration attributable to the
crime for which the sentence is imposed. In re Hinsinger,
180 N.J. Super. 491, 499 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 88 N.J. 494 (1981). The credit is
given for time served between the date of arrest and the imposition of
sentence. State v. Garland,
226 N.J. Super. 356, 361 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
114 N.J. 288 (1988). When the rule applies, the credit is mandatory. State
v. Grate,
311 N.J. Super. 544, 548 & n.3, 549-50 (Law Div. 1997),
affd,
311 N.J. Super. 456, 458 (App. Div. 1998) (citation omitted). Where the
rule does not apply, the credit may nevertheless be awarded based on considerations
of fairness, justice and fair dealings. Ibid.
The credit is impermissible if the confinement is due to service of a
prior-imposed sentence or another charge. State v. Hugley,
198 N.J. Super. 152, 160
(App. Div. 1985) (citing State v. Council,
137 N.J. Super. 306, 308-09 (App.
Div. 1975)); State v. Lynk,
166 N.J. Super. 400 (Law Div. 1979). A
defendant is entitled to credit for time spent in another state's penal institution
as a result of a detainer filed by New Jersey authorities on the
matter resulting in the sentence. State v. Beatty,
128 N.J. Super. 488, 490-91
(App. Div. 1974). In Beatty, the court expressly rejected the argument that "R.
3:21-8 applies only to time spent in custody in New Jersey." Id. at
491. The court stated that, "R. 3:21-8 expresses the public policy of the
State and should be liberally construed." Ibid.
We see no reason why the rule should not apply when a defendant
is held in a foreign country on a New Jersey detainer with respect
to the matter resulting in the sentence. From all parties' perspectives, confinement in
another county, state or a foreign country fall within R. 3:21-8, as long
as defendant is not being held on other charges.
Accordingly, defendant is entitled to additional credit for time spent in custody in
Edinburgh Prison. Therefore, the sentence is affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to
the Law Division, Ocean County for the entry of an amended judgment of
conviction. The judge shall conduct a hearing to determine if, in fact, defendant
was confined in Scotland solely on this charge and for what period. The
judge shall then enter an amended judgment of conviction. The judge should give
a statement of reasons, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, with
respect to the subject of credits, where the issue is in dispute and
has an impact on the sentence. State v. Alevras,
213 N.J. Super. 331,
339 (App. Div. 1986).
Affirmed and remanded.
Footnote: 1
State v. Horne,
56 N.J. 372, 375 (1970).
A-