aggregate sentence. State v. Espino, 264 N.J. Super. 62
(App. Div. 1993).
Double jeopardy did not bar defendant’s resentencing
following the State’s successful appeal of sentence,
notwithstanding that probation department mistakenly
directed defendant to commence serving stayed probation-
ary sentence. State v. Christensen, 270 N.J. Super. 650
(App. Div. 1994).
Double jeopardy may not bar increase of sentence on
resentencing if original sentence was illegal and defendant
had no expectation of finality. State v. Luna, 278 N.J.
Super. 433, 436 n. 1 (App. Div. 1995); State v. Paldino, 203
N.J. Super. 537 (App. Div. 1985); State v. Kirk, 243 N.J.
Super. 636 (App. Div. 1990); but see, State v. Towey, 244
N.J. Super. 582 (App. Div. 1990), certif. denied 122 N.J.
159 (1990).
Double jeopardy did not preclude restructuring of the
sentence of a defendant who was originally sentenced to
indeterminate term pursuant to the repealed 2A Sex
Offender Act but later resentenced pursuant to the Code of
Criminal Justice so long as the aggregate term of
imprisonment was not increased. State v. Bowen, 224 N.J.
Super. 263, 276-277 (App. Div.), certif. denied 113 N.J.
323 (1988). See State v. Rodriquez, 97 N.J. 263 (1984).
XXI. INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM
(ISP) - R. 3:21-10(e); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11
There is generally a 60 day waiting period before an
inmate is eligible for ISP.
A defendant serving a mandatory minimum sentence
cannot be admitted into the Intensive Supervision
Program (ISP). State v. McPhall, 270 N.J. Super. 454 (App.
Div.), certif. denied 137 N.J. 306 (1994).
ISP motions are addressed entirely to the sound
discretion of the three judge panel assigned to hear them.
There were no provisions made for any appellate review of
the panel’s substantive decision. R. 3:21-10(e).
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1h was adopted on May 28, 1993 to
provide that the presumption of imprisonment does not
preclude the admission of an inmate into ISP. P.L. 1993,
c. 123.
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11 was enacted, effective May 28,
1993, and provides that an inmate is not eligible for ISP if
he or she: 1) is convicted of a first degree offense; 2) is
convicted of an offense where the sentencing court found
that there was a substantial likelihood that defendant was
involved in organized criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1a(5); 3) is serving a parole ineligibility term; 4) has
previously completed an ISP program; 5) was previously
convicted of a first degree offense in this state or the
equivalent in another jurisdiction and committed the
instant offense within five years of his or her release from
prison on that prior offense.Any inmate convicted of a second degree offense is not
eligible for ISP if the prosecutor objects in writing within
20 days of inmate’s ISP application, unless the inmate is
within nine months of parole ineligibility and has served at
least six months of his sentence. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11b.If an inmate’s application for change of custodial
sentence to ISP is granted over the objection of the
prosecutor or Attorney General, the order shall not be final
for 20 days or until the State’s motion for reconsideration
is decided by the ISP resentencing panel. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
11c.A victim of an offense shall have the right to make a
written statement or appearance at an ISP hearing.
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11d.A defendant can be charged with escape when he leaves
or absconds from the ISP program. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5b.
(effective February 25, 1991). State v. KYC, 261 N.J.
Super. 104, 109-110 (App. Div.), certif. denied 133 N.J.
436 (1993) (preparole participant in home confinement
program (HCP) was in official detention within meaning
of escape statute).Court cannot admit defendant to Court administered
probation program (ISP) before defendant had served full
term of mandatory period of imprisonment for drug
offense as specified in section 12 plea agreement N.J.S.A.
2C:35-12 of CDRA. State v. Stewart, 136 N.J. 174 (1994)
(Essex County ECLIPSE program modeled on ISP); State
v. McPhall, 270 N.J. Super. 454 (App. Div. 1994), certif.
denied 137 N.J. 309 (1994). See also State v. Bridges, 131
N.J. 402, 414 (1993), aff’g 252 N.J. Super. 286, 293-294
(App. Div. 1991).XXII. SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING
In State v. Howard, 110 N.J. 113, 125 (1988), the
Supreme Court held that the trial judge must inform a
defendant at the time of his guilty plea to a sex offense of the
possibility of an Avenel sentence and the effect such a
sentence will have on the defendant’s parole ineligibility, in