State v. Lane
| Citation | 251 N.J. 84,276 A.3d 114 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-17 September Term 2021,085726 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rahee LANE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Robert Carter Pierce argued the cause for appellant (Robert Carter Pierce, on the briefs).
Caroline C. Galda, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Caroline C. Galda, of counsel and on the briefs).
Jennifer E. Kmieciak, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Jennifer E. Kmieciak, of counsel and on the brief).
Peter T. Blum, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Public Defender of New Jersey (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Peter T. Blum, of counsel and on the brief).
J. John Kim argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; J. John Kim, of counsel and on the brief).
Under the Code of Criminal Justice, trial courts weigh aggravating and mitigating factors "[i]n determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on a person who has been convicted of an offense." N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a), (b). The Legislature enumerated the aggravating factors that the sentencing court "shall consider" in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a), and the mitigating factors that the court "may properly consider" in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b).
In 2020, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 to add a new mitigating factor fourteen: "[t]he defendant was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense." N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14). It provided that "[t]his new act shall take effect immediately." L. 2020, c. 110, § 2.
Defendant Rahee Lane, sentenced to a term of incarceration before the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b), argues that the Court should afford the amendment "pipeline retroactivity" and apply it to defendants who were under twenty-six years old at the time of their offenses, if their direct appeals were pending when the statute was amended. He urges the Court to remand this matter for a resentencing in which the sentencing judge could consider mitigating factor fourteen.
The Appellate Division rejected that argument. The appellate court held that the Legislature intended the amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) to be prospective only and that sentencing courts may apply mitigating factor fourteen only to defendants sentenced after the amendment's effective date.
We construe N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) to be prospective. We find in the statutory language no indication that mitigating factor fourteen applies to defendants sentenced prior to the provision's effective date. See L. 2020, c. 110. We view N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) ’s legislative history to confirm the Legislature's intent to authorize sentencing courts to consider the new mitigating factor in imposing a sentence on or after the date of the amendment. See S. Judiciary Comm. Statement to A. 4373 1 (L. 2020, c. 110).
Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Division's judgment.
Defendant, then nineteen years of age, was arrested following a March 18, 2015 home invasion robbery in Irvington in which two men broke into an apartment and threatened two adult victims and their nine-year-old child with handguns. A grand jury indicted defendant for twenty offenses arising from the incident.
Defendant rejected the State's initial plea offer, in which the State offered to recommend a fourteen-year aggregate prison sentence in exchange for defendant's guilty plea to certain offenses. The State and defendant then negotiated a plea agreement under which defendant agreed to plead guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of first-degree kidnapping, and one count of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and the State agreed to recommend a sentence of sixteen years’ imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On April 21, 2017, defendant pled guilty to those offenses in accordance with his plea agreement.
Defendant was sentenced on December 14, 2017. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel told the court that defendant "was a young man when this offense took place." He urged the court to consider defendant's age, learning disabilities, and remorse when imposing sentence. The State, arguing for the recommended sixteen-year term of imprisonment, relied on the gravity of defendant's offenses, noting that the three victims were "still traumatized by the whole incident." The State also invoked defendant's juvenile adjudications for robbery and his violations of parole.
The sentencing judge found aggravating factor three, "[t]he risk that the defendant will commit another offense;" aggravating factor six, "[t]he extent of the defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses of which the defendant has been convicted;" and aggravating factor nine, "[t]he need for deterring the defendant and others from violating the law." N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), (6), (9). The court placed "heavy weight" on the three aggravating factors. Citing an evaluation of defendant's intellectual capacity, the sentencing judge applied mitigating factor four, "[t]here were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant's conduct, though failing to establish a defense." N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(4).1 The judge afforded moderate weight to that mitigating factor.
The sentencing judge found that the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating factors that applied. Nonetheless, citing evidence that defendant "did not have a full grasp" of the State's proofs when he rejected the State's initial fourteen-year plea offer, the judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate fourteen-year prison sentence subject to NERA. The sentencing court thus imposed a term of incarceration two years shorter than the term contemplated by defendant's plea agreement.
Defendant appealed his sentence. On October 19, 2020, while defendant's appeal was pending before the Appellate Division but before oral argument on that appeal, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) to include mitigating factor fourteen.
On March 23, 2021, the Appellate Division held oral argument on defendant's appeal. Defendant argued that the appellate court should afford pipeline retroactivity to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14). He asked the Appellate Division to remand the matter to the sentencing court for a resentencing in which the court would consider mitigating factor fourteen.
The Appellate Division declined to remand this matter to the sentencing court. The court viewed the Legislature's statement that the new mitigating factor would "take effect immediately" to authorize sentencing judges to consider the mitigating factor only in sentences imposed after the effective date of the amendment. It affirmed the sentencing court's judgment.
We granted defendant's petition for certification, in which defendant raised only the issue of whether the October 19, 2020 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) should be afforded pipeline retroactivity. 248 N.J. 534, 261 A.3d 330 (2021). We also granted the applications of the Office of the Public Defender, the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, and the Attorney General to participate as amici curiae.
Defendant argues that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) should be afforded pipeline retroactivity. He asserts that mitigating factor fourteen should apply to any defendant under twenty-six years of age at the time of his offense if the defendant was sentenced before the amendment and his direct appeal was pending on the amendment's effective date. Defendant acknowledges the presumption that new criminal statutes are intended to apply prospectively but contends that the exception to that presumption for ameliorative laws governs this appeal. He asserts that the Savings Statute, N.J.S.A. 1:1-15, is irrelevant to the retroactivity issue presented in this appeal.
The State asserts that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) ’s plain language and legislative history reflect the Legislature's intent that the new mitigating factor apply prospectively. It argues that the presumption that new criminal laws apply prospectively is unrebutted in this appeal, and that the Savings Statute, N.J.S.A. 1:1-15, precludes retroactive application of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14).
Amicus curiae the Office of the Public Defender contends that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) is ameliorative and that the Legislature intended that it apply retroactively if reasonably possible. It states that retroactive application of the new mitigating factor would apply to a limited number of defendants and would have a minimal effect on the administration of justice.
Amicus curiae the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey also argues that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) is ameliorative and is, therefore, within an exception to the presumption of prospective application.
Amicus curiae the Attorney General asserts that the Legislature chose the language "take effect immediately" to express its intent that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) apply only to sentences imposed after the statute's enactment. The Attorney General views N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) ’s legislative history to support prospective application of mitigating factor fourteen.
In November 2019, the New Jersey Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission (CSDC) submitted its first Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature, as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:48A-4.2 See N.J. Crim. Sent'g & Disposition Comm'n, Annual Report (Nov. 2019). In that report, the CSDC proposed nine sentencing reforms. Id. at 21-35.
The CSDC's first recommendation was to "eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes." Id. at 21-23. Its second recommendation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Menjivar
... ... NERA) ... Because ... we are remanding for resentencing on the conviction for the ... murder of Ferdinand, the court will also need to apply and ... consider mitigating factor fourteen. See State v ... Lane , 251 N.J. 84, 97 n.3 (2022). The sentencing court ... should also impose the five-year term of parole supervision ... as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(c). In remanding for a ... resentencing on the murder conviction of Ferdinand, we ... recognize that the resentence will ... ...
- State v. Morente-Dubon
-
State v. McNeil
...deterrence has relatively insignificant penal value"). After McNeil's appeal was filed, the Court issued its decision in State v. Lane, 251 N.J. 84, 96 (2022), which "that mitigating factor fourteen appl[ied] prospectively only." We thus reject defendant's argument to the contrary. Nor are ......
-
State v. McNeil
...deterrence has relatively insignificant penal value"). After McNeil's appeal was filed, the Court issued its decision in State v. Lane, 251 N.J. 84, 96 (2022), which "that mitigating factor fourteen appl[ied] prospectively only." We thus reject defendant's argument to the contrary. Nor are ......