Criminal Law Blog
Sentencing and Forfeiture (Part 3)
The United States Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Other cases similarly have recognized that certain deadlines, if missed, do not deprive a public official of the power to take the action to which the deadline applies. See, e. g., Barnhart v....
Sentencing and Forfeiture (Part 2)
Justice Sotomayor continued in relevant part: A district court's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s requirement to enter a preliminary order before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on...
Sentencing and Forfeiture (Part 1)
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the cases of McIntosh v. U.S. The principal issue concerned the required procedure for a judge to order a forfeiture as part of a criminal sentencing. Justice Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant...
Lunsford Act Plea Offers (Part 2)
The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: In sum, we deem an augmented statement of reasons to be adequate to permit meaningful judicial review, thus ensuring the constitutional application of the JLA and Guidelines. We are unpersuaded by...
Lunsford Act Plea Offers (Part 1)
On August 19, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Somerset County case of State v. Arthur Wildgoose. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2 concerned the constitutionality of the prosecution’s refusal to extend a pre-indictment offer in light of its...
Modifications to Sex Offender Notification Tiers (Part 2)
Judge Puglisi concluded with the following in relevant part: While M.L.'s Scale score was properly computed, the judge nevertheless had the obligation to determine whether, given the individual facts of the case, the notification attendant to that tier was...
Modifications to Sex Offender Notification Tiers (Part 1)
On August 16, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Burlington County case of I.M.O Registrant M.L. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8 concerned whether the State could request a modification to the sex offender notification tier when the assessment...
Post Conviction Relief and Trooper Dennis Cases (Part 3)
The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded in relevant part: Once the corresponding entry is located within Exhibit S-152, the prosecutor is to “copy and paste” that row of data into a new document. The AIR number from that entry must then be compared against the Dennis...
Post Conviction Relief and Trooper Dennis Cases (Part 2)
Justice Noriega continued in relevant part: The Special Adjudicator filed a comprehensive 370-page report detailing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Court summarizes. The parties largely agree with the Special Adjudicator’s findings and...
Post Conviction Relief and Trooper Dennis Cases (Part 1)
On August 8, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Ocean County case of State v. Zingis. The principal issue concerned the procedure for challenging Trooper Dennis cases through post-conviction relief proceedings during the pendency of a subsequent DWI...