NJ Court Upholds Tier Three Status for Megan’s Law Offender
In the Matter of Registrant J.W.
Docket No. A-2938-23
Decided April 23, 2025
Submitted by New Jersey Sex Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided registrant, J.W.’s, appeal from a trial court order denying his motion for a downward departure from his Tier Three high risk offender classification under the “heartland” exception to Megan’s Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23.
In 2003, J.W. was adjudicated delinquent of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), for offenses he committed while he was a juvenile, between the ages of ten to sixteen. The conduct underlying the conviction involved the sexual assaults of three minor victims: J.W.’s seven- year-old female cousin; a female friend of his cousin; and a female friend of J.W.’s sister. J.W. was sentenced to serve two years of incarceration and required to comply with Megan’s Law under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(b)(2). He was released from the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel, New Jersey in 2007 and was classified as a Tier Three offender.
In 2014, J.W., then thirty-two years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of his girlfriend’s sixteen-year-old daughter. He plead guilty to one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), and was sentenced to three years’ incarceration and parole supervision for life (PSL), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. On the same date, he was concurrently sentenced for failing to comply with Megan’s Law registration requirements, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(d). Following J.W.’s release from incarceration, he was classified under the Registrant Risk Assessment Score (RRAS) to account for the new conviction. After a hearing, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence supported an RRAS score of ninety-three and classified J.W. as a Tier Three high risk offender. J.W. was also deemed a Tier Three high risk offender in three subsequent orders, with the most recent 2022 order memorializing the RRAS score of eighty-one.
After two years, J.W. filed a motion for a reduction in his classification from Tier Three to Tier Two. The trial court held oral argument on the motion, denying the application in a comprehensive written opinion. The trial court found that there was no showing that J.W.’s offense-free seven years in the community would render him “outside the heartland” of Megan’s Law cases because he reoffended. The court observed J.W.’s history of re-offending outweighs the time J.W. has spent offense free in the community as evidence of a lowered level of risk. Ultimately, the trial court determined J.W. had not demonstrated by preponderance of the evidence that his is the unusual case where relevant, material, and reliable facts exist for which the RRA scale does not account, or does not adequately account, such that the court should override the RRAS score. Registrant J.W. appealed.
On appeal, Registrant J.W. contended that the hearing court should have departed from the standard tier three Megan’s Law notification requirements and ordered that J.W. be subject to the tier two requirements instead. After considering the arguments of both parties, the Appellate Court determined that there was no error with the trial court’s finding that J.W.’s evidence was not credible, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations. The court articulated that the trial court evaluated Sharii Battle, MA, of Rutgers University Behavioral Health Care’s letter and found the impact of J.W.’s completion of sex offender treatment on recidivism was “questionable as a result of J.W.’s changing story on taking responsibility for his offenses,” and because J.W. was recently directed to return to treatment by his parole officer. The court noted that even if it were to discount J.W.’s failure to accept responsibility, the trial court’s additional findings that Dr. James Reynolds’ psychosexual expert report did not credibly establish J.W. presents a lower risk are substantiated in the record, alone warranting denial. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court’s well-supported denial of J.W.’s request to reduce his Megan’s Law obligations through a change in tier classification was not an abuse of discretion and was supported by the substantial, credible evidence in the record.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients for appeals in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to reclassify a defendant’s Tier risk offender classification under Megan’s Law. 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.
