Family Part by R. 5:1-1, gives a juvenile adjudicated
delinquent the opportunity to address the judge directly
prior to sentencing. Failure to comply with this right of
allocution warrants remand for resentencing. See also
State in the Interest of A.H., 115 N.J. Super. 268, 272
(App. Div. 1971) (juvenile’s right to allocution
compelled by fundamental fairness).
D. Credit for Time Served
State in the Interest of W.M., 147 N.J. Super. 24 (App.
Div. 1977), held that R. 3:21-8, providing that an adult
defendant shall receive credit for time served in custody
between his arrest and the imposition of sentence, applies
to juveniles. Although R. 3:21-8 does not have a
counterpart in the juvenile court rules or statute, due
process and fundamental fairness require that the same
time credit provided an adult be extended to juvenile
proceedings.
State in the Interest of J.M., 273 N.J. Super. 593 (Ch.
Div. 1994). N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-43e(2) and N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-
43f, enacted in June 1993, amended the sentencing
provisions for juvenile motor vehicle offenses to provide
for mandatory minimum terms of incarceration for
certain repeat offenders and to preclude the awarding of
time served pending adjudication to the extent that it
would be deducted from the mandatory minimum term.
In interpreting these provisions, the Family Part held
that (1) the minimum penalties apply to any juvenile
who has a previous delinquency adjudication for
unlawful taking or theft of a motor vehicle, regardless of
whether that previous adjudication predates passage of
the act and (2) the proscription against credit for time
served is unconstitutional as violative of the equal
protection clause.
State in the Interest of S.T., 273 N.J. Super. 436 (App.
Div. 1994), held that a juvenile sex offender was not
entitled to credit for time spent at the Pinelands
Residential Group Center, a residential program for
treatment of juvenile sex offenders, against his disposition
for probation violation, because it was reasonable to treat
juvenile sex offenders differently than adult sex offenders,
and the residential nature of the treatment program was
not punitive or custodial in nature.
E. Modification of Disposition Order
The court may correct, change or modify a
disposition order at any time and may also grant post-
disposition relief in accordance with the provisions of R.
3:22. R. 5:24-6. See, e.g., State in the Interest of Doe, 169
N.J. Super. 585 (J. & D.R. Ct. 1979); State in the Interest
of J.M., 103 N.J. Super. 88 (J. & D.R. Ct. 1968).State in the Interest of C.B., 163 N.J. Super. 215 (J. &
D.R. Ct. 1978). Where there has been no violation of
probation, it is unconstitutional to allow modification to
a disposition by an additional and extended dispositional
condition (subsequently requested restitutionary provi-
sion not allowed).F. Appeal of Disposition OrderState in the Interest of R.P., 198 N.J. Super. 105 (App.
Div. 1984). In the absence of a specific statutory grant
of authority, the State is not entitled to appeal from
orders imposing probationary sentences on juveniles.
Neither N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f(2) nor R. 2:9-3(d), which
permit the State to appeal a lenient sentence imposed on
an adult for conviction of a crime, provide authority to
appeal a juvenile disposition.State in the Interest of S.T., 233 N.J. Super. 598 (App.
Div. 1989). When there is potentially irreparable harm
in delay, such as where the seriousness of a juvenile’s
problems raise an issue as to the propriety of the ordered
disposition, particularized motions to accelerate should
be made in all appeals in delinquency dispositions as a
matter of course.G. De Minimus InfractionsState v. I.B., 227 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 1988),
held that N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11, which enables an assignment
judge to dismiss a prosecution on the ground that the
infraction was de minimus, does not apply to persons
charged with delinquency. In reaching this decision, the
Appellate Division specifically disagreed with State v.
Ziegler, 226 N.J. Super. 504 (Law Div. 1988), in which
an assignment judge concluded that the de minimus
statute did apply in delinquency proceedings.
Nevertheless, the Ziegler court did not find that
possession by a juvenile of a pipe with marijuana residue
and 12 cans of beer, one of which was opened, was
“trivial” conduct warranting dismissal under the de
minimus provision.H. AIDS/HIV TestingState in Interest of J.G., 151 N.J. 565 (1997)
concluded that the statute compelling the testing for
AIDS/HIV virus of juvenile offenders charged with
delinquency or adjudicated delinquent for an act which
would constitute aggravated sexual assault or sexual