State v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 04 March 1975 |
| Citation | 334 A.2d 17,66 N.J. 558 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas CARROLL, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Steven Jay Greenstein, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Marc J. Friedman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae State of N.J. (William land, Attorney Gen., attorney).
John H. Ratliff, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-respondent (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Certification was granted in this case, 65 N.J. 570, 325 A.2d 704 (1974), to consider the issues of the legality and propriety of sentencing defendant to the Youth Correctional Institution Complex for two consecutive indeterminate terms.
Thomas Carroll, defendant herein, participated in the robbery of a tavern. He was shot during the course of the robbery and was apprehended at the scene. A companion escaped. Following indictment on numerous charges, defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and a charge of receiving a stolen automobile. The remaining charges were dismissed.
The trial judge accepted the pleas. Defendant was sentenced for the robbery 'to the Youth Reception and Rehabilitation Center at Yardville for an indeterminate term' with a 10 year maximum; for receiving a stolen automobile, defendant was sentenced 'to the Youth Reception and Rehabilitation Center at Yardville for an indeterminate term, which sentence shall be consecutive to the sentence imposed' for the robbery.
Defendant appealed solely on the issue of excessive sentence. The Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 128 N.J.Super. 234, 319 A.2d 752 (1974), while it did not question the legality of consecutive indeterminate reformatory sentences, held that the asserted rationale for them ran counter to the concept of rehabilitation which is the basic purpose of the indeterminate reformatory sentence. Accordingly, it modified the sentence imposed for receiving a stolen automobile by making it concurrent with, instead of consecutive to, the indeterminate sentence imposed for the robbery.
In the certification proceeding before us it was disclosed that prior to the Appellate Division's ruling, defendant had been released from Yardville under both indeterminate sentences so that the claim of excessive sentence had become academic except for possible violation of parole by defendant and then only to the extent that the maximum for the consecutive indeterminate sentences (15 years) would exceed the maximum for concurrent sentences (10 years). Accordingly, we are not inclined to disturb the Appellate Division's actual disposition of the matter.
We take issue with that part of the Appellate Division opinion which stated that the asserted rationale for consecutive indeterminate sentences runs counter to the basic purpose of a reformatory sentence. We think the foregoing statement is too broad.
The legality of consecutive indeterminate sentences has been consistently upheld in this State, State v. Prewitt, 127 N.J.Super. 560, 318 A.2d 427 (App.Div.1974); State v. Horton, 45 N.J.Super. 44, 131 A.2d 425 (App.Div.1957); see State v. Bono, 128 N.J.Super. 254, 264, 319 A.2d 762 (App.Div.1974). However, routine use of this kind of sentence as a sentencing mechanism is undesirable and should be avoided. New Jersey Sentencing Manual for Judges (1971, Supp.1972); see American Bar Association Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (approved 1968).
A sentence to the Youth Correctional Institution Complex under N.J.S.A. 30:4--147 contemplates rehabilitation as its primary purpose. The type of individual who can be sentenced to the Youth Complex is restricted. The facilities provided,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Levine
...The primary purpose of a sentence to the Youth Reception and Correction Center is rehabilitation of the offender. State v. Carroll, 66 N.J. 558, 561, 334 A.2d 17 (1975). This purpose is highlighted in our discussion of N.J.S.A. 30:4-147's predecessor in State v. Pallitto, The purpose of thi......
-
State v. Garcia
...v. Meints, 41 Ill.App.3d 215, 355 N.E.2d 125, 129-130 (1976); State v. Underwood, 353 So.2d 1013, 1019 (La.1977); State v. Carroll, 66 N.J. 558, 334 A.2d 17 (1975); Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391 We now examine the trial court's sentencing rationale in the present case. The presentence repor......
-
State in Interest of J.L.A.
...have been rendered regarding consecutive sentences for youthful adult offenders, an entirely distinct category, See State v. Carroll, 66 N.J. 558, 334 A.2d 17 (1975); State v. Horton, 45 N.J.Super. 44, 131 A.2d 425 (App.Div.1957), no decision on the issue of consecutive juvenile disposition......
-
State v. Brewer
...they were not excessive and do not represent an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 66 N.J. 563, 334 A.2d 20 (1975); State v. Carroll, 66 N.J. 558, 334 A.2d 17 (1975); State v. Tyson, 43 N.J. 411, 204 A.2d 864 (1964), Cert. den. 380 U.S. 987, 85 S.Ct. 1359, 14 L.Ed.2d 279 The conviction of......