Complaint Review: landscapes by Angelo

 Contrary to the inferences sought to be drawn by defendant, the VOP was filed before the conclusion of defendant's initial probationary sentence.   The probationary term imposed at sentencing expired on June 12, 2011.   The VOP was filed five days prior to the conclusion of that term and related to a new charge filed on January 14, 2011.  

Perhaps our review would be altered had the violation occurred sometime after June 12, 2011.   Since the facts are otherwise, we need not consider the question of whether a defendant whose probation is extended solely to allow payment of restitution can be subject to incarceration on a VOP if he commits a new offense during the extended probation period.

 Here, the judge concluded the cited violation, that is, committing a new criminal offense, was not a technical violation but rather serious enough to justify revocation of probation.  N.J.S.A. 2C:45–3a(4).   See also State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169, 175 (1989).   Thereafter, he resentenced defendant to a prison term “that might have been imposed originally for the offense of which he was convicted.”  N.J.S.A. 2C:45–3b.   We find no error.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.  FN1. The record contains only the comprehensive enforcement program order, and not a transcript of the proceeding.   The order references not only the above stated indictment, but also Indictment No. 06–12–03942, an accusation AC–08–06–01151 and another matter FO–14–000019–09.   We have not been provided with a transcript of this proceeding.

2.  FN2. Separate provisions set the amounts and methods to set fines and restitution.  N.J.S.A. 2C:43–3, N.J.S.A. 2C:44–2.

PER CURIAM