Vehicular Homicide and Consecutive Sentences (Part 2)

by | Oct 3, 2019 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Justice Patterson continued in relevant part: Nothing in the trial court’s determination in this case suggests that it reached its decision through the application of a presumption, contrary to the Appellate Division’s suggestion. In the court’s detailed consideration of the facts before it, and its citation to the language of Carey, there was no mention of a presumption. We detect in the trial court’s analysis no misunderstanding of the governing principles.

Consistent with Yarbough and Carey, the trial court acted within its discretion when it found that the injuries inflicted on multiple victims in this case warranted consecutive sentences. As Carey mandated, the trial court carefully considered whether the accident’s impact on multiple victims “renders the collective group of offenses distinctively worse” than those offenses would be had defendant killed or injured only one individual. The court deemed the impact of defendant’s conduct on both R.S. and M.J.G. to be the “worst consequences imaginable,” and observed that the impact of defendant’s conduct on M.G. to be “extremely serious”: a child, R.S., was killed; another child, M.J.G., was permanently paralyzed; and M.G. was seriously and permanently injured. To the trial court, the imposition of concurrent sentences for defendant’s offenses would not ensure accountability.

The trial court considered the fairness of a thirty-two-year aggregate NERA sentence, taking into account defendant’s age. See State v. Cuff, ___ N.J. ___ (2019) (slip op. at 37-38) (reminding trial courts to consider the fairness of an aggregate sentence); State v. Abdullah (2005) (same). It properly viewed its primary obligation, however, not to ensure that defendant would live long enough to be released on parole, but to craft a sentence warranted by the offenses.

Every consecutive sentence in multiple victim cases strengthens the informal presumption against concurrent sentences. This is because the New Jersey Supreme Court also requires sentencing parity, i.e. that similar cases have similar sentences.

Excellent rating
Based on 287 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional, always available to answer any questions I had. Plus, I didn't lose my license all thanks to him. Great lawyer overall
David B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you !
Billy F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very pleased with my representation by Fred Sisto. He is very honest and explained everything to me in detail. I would recommend him to anybody who is seeking legal representation..
Jeff M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a very competent attorney. He is knowledgeable, thorough, effective and possesses outstanding interpersonal skills. He provided excellent representation in my case and obtained a favorable outcome.
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Called back within 10 minutes,very easy to talk to. Not judgmental at all. I am hopeful about the outcome.
Colleen H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is easy to work with. He explains all the intricate detail in an our language not lawyers lingo. He is also very responsive to questions you communicate to him. All of this and he was able to arrange a very favorable deal on top of being a good guy.
Frank T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fantastic lawyer, I had two charges that were thankfully dropped thanks to Fred. If you're looking for a great lawyer, Fred Sisto is the guy to call. 5 stars. Thank you Fred Sisto.
Dan M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was a excellent choice for my case, whatever he told on the first call exactly what happened in courtroom, very professional/ Down to earth, great in communication he reply’s no matter what time of the day or night it is. Very impresses with him and I finally found my go to guy for every legal need.
Sam S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I've personally known Fred Sisto to be focused, determined, aggressive, and energetic.....qualities I believe are essential when you're in need of legal representation
M D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred helped me in a civil matter and was very attentive to my needs and responsive to my emails. Also very detail-oriented and timely. Highly recommend.
Kristen C