Available 24/7. Handling cases throughout all of New Jersey.
FREE consultations via zoom, in person, or by phone.
Recovery Court Appeals
*NOTE: The below should not be construed as a promise or guarantee of similar results. Results will vary depending on the particular facts and legal circumstances of each individual case.
State v. G.G. - Client was charged with various felony-level offenses for allegedly causing a car accident while driving under the influence and resisting arrest/obstructing law enforcement officers from doing their investigation. The State’s plea offer was for client to serve time in prison consecutively to the time he would serve on his violation of probation. Ms. Denholtz prepared a detailed sentencing memorandum and mitigation packet, and sought to have the Court place G.G. in Recovery Court Special Probation for 5 years, instead of sending him to prison. The State vigorously opposed our Motion. Ms. Denholtz was able to successfully convince the Court that G.G. and the community would be better served placing him in Recovery Court probation rather than sending the client to prison.
State v. T.G. - Client had numerous cases pending against him for shoplifting offenses. Prosecutors wanted Client to go to State Prison, because (they claimed) T.G. was a danger to the community. Ms. Denholtz successfully filed and argued a lengthy Recovery Court appeal which ultimately allowed client to remain in Recovery Court and avoid a State Prison sentence. Ms. Denholtz highlighted the fact that T.G. was a substance-addicted offender who also suffered from mental health issues. Ms. Denholtz further highlighted that T.G. committed shoplifting to support his drug habits. The Judge ultimately agreed with Ms. Denholtz’s arguments over the State’s and allowed the Client to stay in Recovery Court and avoid going to State Prison.
State v. C.S. - Client was charged, in nine separate domestic violence cases, with many felony offenses. The State was seeking to send the client to New Jersey State Prison. Ms. Denholtz prepared a comprehensive brief for the Recovery Court judge, arguing that C.S. should be given the opportunity to be in Recovery Court Special Probation, rather than go to prison. The State argued that C.S. was a violent repeat offender, and this made him a danger to the community such that he should not be afforded the opportunity to be in Recovery Court. Ms. Denholtz countered the State’s arguments by showing that if the court were to sentence C.S. to a State Prison term, he would be immediately eligible for release due to the amount of jail credit he had already accumulated while his cases were pending. Ms. Denholtz successfully argued that C.S. was instead choosing to sign himself up for stringent supervision on Recovery Court which showed that he truly wanted to get well from his substance abuse and mental health issues. Ms. Denholtz provided the Court with letters from respected members of the community supporting C.S.’s entry into Recovery Court Special Probation. After a contentious battle with the State in Court, the Recovery Court Judge agreed that C.S. should be given the opportunity to be in Recovery Court Special Probation as an alternative to State Prison.