Preview:

a4891-07.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4891-07T4 4891-07T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LACY MORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted March 2, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Alvarez.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,
Indictment No. 95-12-3195.
Lacy Morris, appellant pro se.
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy P. Scharff,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
On December 12, 1996, two days after his jury trial commenced, defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree
carjacking, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State recommended that defendant receive a
twenty-five year sentence with a five-year minimum period of parole ineligibility. Defendant was sentenced in
accordance with the State's recommendation.
By order dated August 13th, 1999, defendant's pro se motion seeking a change of custody was denied
without prejudice to defendant re-filing the motion once he completed his mandatory period of parole ineligibility.
On December 24, 2007, defendant filed a second motion to change custody to a narcotics' treatment program
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4891-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:57:46 PM]




a4891-07.opn.html
outside of the prison. The court, without oral argument, denied the motion. In its statement of reasons incorporated
into its order the court stated: "[T]he extent of Defendant's criminal record militates against the granting of relief"
and the "purpose for which the custodial sentence might reasonably be continued outweighs the interests sought
to be served by transfer to a narcotics treatment center[.]" The present appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant contends that he is in need of a substance abuse "program outside [the] prison to address
[his] addiction and to explore if [he has] any underlying factors that are exacerbating [his] addiction." He contends
further that while he has participated in substance abuse programs during his incarceration, such programs "do not
adequately address the problems of substance abuse, but merely arrest the problem until such prisoner is released."
In reviewing a trial court's determination to release a defendant to a drug treatment facility, we consider whether
the trial court abused its discretion. State v. McKinney, 140 N.J. Super. 160, 163 (App. Div. 1976). "On an application
for transfer to a narcotics treatment program the burden rests upon the applicant to establish that he is an
appropriate candidate for such relief. To that end, he is obliged to establish such facts as would move the judge to
exercise his discretion favorably." Ibid.
Here, defendant, who was twenty-nine years old at the time of sentencing, had been adjudicated a delinquent on
three prior occasions and had at least eight arrests over a ten-year period, which resulted in four indictable
convictions. He violated probation and parole three times. Thus, defendant's prior criminal history demonstrated his
failure to be deterred from engaging in further criminal activity, as well as his poor response to probation and
parole. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's conclusion that the interests sought
to be served through defendant's incarceration were not outweighed by the interests that would be served by his
transfer to a substance abuse treatment center. See State v. Davis, 68 N.J. 69, 86 (1975).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-4891-07T4
April 30, 2009
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4891-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:57:46 PM]




a4891-07.opn.html
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4891-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:57:46 PM]

Download a4891-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law