W.B. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
A-5490-11T3
In Williams v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 423 N.J. Super.
176 (App. Div. 2011), we considered whether the
Commissioner's broad authority to select the appropriate
institution to house inmates, N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2, is
limited by the Sex Offender Act (SOA), N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to
-10. In deciding the appeal of an inmate who challenged
his transfer from the general prison population to the
Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC), we concluded that
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC)
lacked the discretion to transfer inmates to the ADTC who
did not meet the sentencing parameters of the SOA.
Williams, supra, 423 N.J. Super. at 186. W.B.'s appeal
entails a different challenge to the authority of the
Commissioner regarding assignment to the ADTC. Convicted
as a sex offender in New Hampshire, his custody was
transferred to New Jersey pursuant to the Interstate
Corrections Compact (the Compact), N.J.S.A. 30:7C-1 to -12;1
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 622-B:1 to -B:3 (2013), where he
was assigned to the ADTC. Following Williams, however, he
was reassigned to a wing for inmates who were not sentenced
under the SOA and appealed that decision, arguing that the
Compact required that he be treated as an ADTC-eligible
offender. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 01/29/14
[1As codified, the Compact "empowers New Jersey to enter into contracts with other states
'for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated
within receiving states.'" Van Wickle v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 370 N.J. Super. 40, 45
(App. Div. 2004) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:7C-4(a)).]
A-5490-11T3
In Williams v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 423 N.J. Super.
176 (App. Div. 2011), we considered whether the
Commissioner's broad authority to select the appropriate
institution to house inmates, N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2, is
limited by the Sex Offender Act (SOA), N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to
-10. In deciding the appeal of an inmate who challenged
his transfer from the general prison population to the
Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC), we concluded that
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC)
lacked the discretion to transfer inmates to the ADTC who
did not meet the sentencing parameters of the SOA.
Williams, supra, 423 N.J. Super. at 186. W.B.'s appeal
entails a different challenge to the authority of the
Commissioner regarding assignment to the ADTC. Convicted
as a sex offender in New Hampshire, his custody was
transferred to New Jersey pursuant to the Interstate
Corrections Compact (the Compact), N.J.S.A. 30:7C-1 to -12;1
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 622-B:1 to -B:3 (2013), where he
was assigned to the ADTC. Following Williams, however, he
was reassigned to a wing for inmates who were not sentenced
under the SOA and appealed that decision, arguing that the
Compact required that he be treated as an ADTC-eligible
offender. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 01/29/14
[1As codified, the Compact "empowers New Jersey to enter into contracts with other states
'for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated
within receiving states.'" Van Wickle v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 370 N.J. Super. 40, 45
(App. Div. 2004) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:7C-4(a)).]
