NJ Court Rules Prior Gun Charges Don’t Bar Recovery Court Entry

State of New Jersey v. Ahjhir Jones

Docket No. A-1648-23

Decided March 20, 2025

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent published opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s interlocutory appeal to resolve an issue of statutory interpretation involving a provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, which addresses the admission criteria to Recovery Court.

In this case, the defendant had prior gun charges, which had been resolved prior to him applying to Recovery Court for a different offense that did not involve a firearm. The State contended that defendant was legally ineligible for admission into Recovery Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5), which they argued, bars applicants if they “possessed a firearm at the time of the present offense . . . [or] at the time of any pending criminal charge.” The trial court judge rejected the State’s proposed construction that defendant was legally ineligible for admission into Recovery Court under the aforementioned statute and disagreed with the State’s interpretation of the second clause of the statute.

The trial judge concluded that the phrase “at the time of any pending charge” bars only applicants: (1) charged with committing a firearms offense and, (2) whose firearms charges remain pending at the time of the Recovery Court application. Since defendant’s gun charges were at one time “pending” but had since resolved when he applied to Recovery Court, the trial court determined that he was legally eligible to apply to Recovery Court for a different offense that did not involve a firearm and overruled the State’s objection. The State subsequently appealed.

On appeal, the State argued that the trial judge erred in admitting defendant to Recovery Court because he does not meet the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5), and that his admission will lead to the imposition of an illegal sentence. Specifically, the State contended that the plain language and legislative intent of subsection (a)(5) are clear, and both demonstrate defendant is legally ineligible for Recovery Court. The State also argued that the court’s interpretation of subsection (a)(5) is also flawed because it fosters an absurd result in situations where a defendant would be denied admission to Recovery Court because their charges are pending—and thus presumed innocent—but would permit potential entry to a defendant after a conviction. The State further contended that the judge erred in relying on Ancrum because that case involved N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(7), which bars entry to Recovery Court where the applicant has a conviction or pending charge for certain enumerated offenses.

Ultimately the Appellate Court was unpersuaded by the State’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Court articulated that the trial judge correctly found that to qualify as a “pending charge” under subsection (a)(5), the firearms charge must still be pending at the time defendant seeks admission into Recovery Court. Thus, so long as a firearms charge was resolved prior to a defendant’s application, whether by plea or otherwise, the charge will not bar a defendant’s entry into Recovery Court under subsection (a)(5). The court noted that the State’s construction of subsection (a)(5) would render its first clause superfluous because if a Recovery Court applicant cannot “possess a firearm at the time of any pending criminal charge,” and “any pending criminal charge” includes the present offense, it would be unnecessary to further specify an applicant cannot “possess a firearm at the time of the present offense.” Further, the court indicated that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 the Legislature did not intend to exclude from Recovery Court all applicants who possessed firearms in the past.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining firearm possession and Recovery Court applications. This recently published opinion is important to understand because it resolved the question of a defendant’s eligibility for Track One Recovery Court with a prior conviction for a weapons charge. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.