Anticipated Changes in New Jersey's Post Conviction Relief Rule

One of the basic goals of the American justice system is finality. Thus, there are certain timelines that must be met. If a civil or criminal litigant wishes to file an appeal, those time constraints are usually strictly construed absent exceptional circumstances. Moreover, once the appellate process is completed, a litigant can rarely get a "second bite at the apple."

In New Jersey, like many other states, a defendant can obtain further judicial review even when an appellate deadline has passed or when the direct appellate process has been completed under a procedure known as Post Conviction Relief. (PCR). A PCR application is the federal equivalent to Habeas Corpus in that it provides a defendant with an opportunity to challenge the integrity of his/her incarceration even after appeals have been exhausted or the time for an appeal has passed. The grounds upon which a defendant may file a PCR application are rather narrowly drawn and usually severely scrutinized because the general consensus is that PCR is merely a back-door request to analysis issues that should have been raised on appeal or were unsuccessfully on appeal.

Despite the difficulty in obtaining relief, PCR filings in the state of New Jersey have increased significantly since 2004. A recent committee created by the New Jersey Supreme Court is now proposing a major overhaul of the process. The most significant change recommended by the committee would be to make it more difficult for defendants to file repeat petitions for PCR on the basis of newly found legal or factual contentions. The proposal was conceived to provide defendants with a strong incentive to raise all issues in one PCR application.

Other recommendations were: (a) an increase in the time to assign petitions to the Public Defenders office; (b) a 30 day limit for the trial court to render final decisions on PCR motions; and (c) standards for deciding whether to hold an evidential hearing.

While one of the committee members did not believe that the proposed amendments would alleviate the number of PCR petitions, he felt that the amendments would make a more efficient procedure for the disposition of multiple PCR petitions.