Extended Term Sentence Applications (Part 1)

by | Sep 16, 2020 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County, Uncategorized

Fred Sisto lady justice

On July 7, 2020, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Somerset County case of State v. Rahsjahn Courtney. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 was whether the prosecution was required to formally apply for an extended term sentence in order to prevent the court from imposing less than what the plea agreement recommended.

Justice Timpone wrote for the Court in relevant part: Against that backdrop, we analyze defendant’s assertion that, because the State failed to file a formal application for an extended-term sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), defendant’s negotiated plea agreement of fourteen years’ imprisonment and sixty-three months of parole ineligibility falls within the ordinary sentencing range under the CDRA and the sentencing court retained the authority to impose any lesser term within the ordinary range. We disagree. Defendant is arguing form over substance.

Indeed, the plain language of Section 12 does not require a formal application when a prosecutor pursuant to a negotiated plea agrees not to request a mandatory extended-term sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) while seeking the benefit of a Section 12 plea agreement. The Appellate Division correctly interpreted Section 12 as applying “whenever an offense defined in the CDRA specifies a mandatory sentence of imprisonment . . . or period of parole ineligibility.” N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 (emphasis added). N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) is a part of the CDRA, State v. Lagares (1992), and specifically identifies the CDRA offenses that are subject to mandatory sentences and periods of parole ineligibility upon the prosecutor’s request.

The plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) requires the prosecutor to file an application to impose an extended term. Brimage, 153 N.J. at 11 (finding that N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) “only takes effect upon the application of the prosecutor” for an extended term). Nowhere in Section 12 is there a requirement for a formal procedure. Section 12 expressly permits the State to negotiate away its right to seek mandatory sentences. Section 12 kicks in when the State and a defendant enter into a plea agreement involving an offense for which the CDRA specifies a mandatory sentence or period of parole ineligibility.

Here we see the interplay between the powers of our three branches of government. The Legislature enacted sentencing statutes that give the executive branch the power to eliminate the discretion of the judiciary under certain circumstances.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
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
Although I don't know Fred, he has my appreciation in his fight for my liberty. Mothers against drunk driving have ruined as many lives as they have saved. We need bread and butter laws in N. J ! Stopping moterists assuming they are breaking a law is against my rights. N. J. Is a police state with a cop on every corner. From the unjust gas tax to the corruption in Trenton, we need more attorneys like Frederick Sisto. He is aware of the people's shrinking liberties.
Freehold F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Have nothing but great things to say about Fred, highly recommended
Bill S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
i have not needed the service of fred sisto but am grateful for the notices i receive
Bill P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is an excellent attorney. Even though we did not initiate the official pleading process, he deep dived into researching and sorted out my questions without any consultation fee. I highly recommend him!
Qianru Z
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great experience overall having Frederick P Sisto as my attorney. Sisto understands his client, very insightful and is an expert in his field. Truly a professional and marvelous individual.
Maybelin R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a good lawyer, he is really young yet made me feel confident that my lawful rights were being protected, and investigated all avenues when there was potential they weren't. He is very knowledgeable, and offered great peace of mind in such a distressing situation. I always felt like he had my back throughout the whole process, supporting aspects to my case that didn't even fall within his scope. I would highly recommend Fred.
Amy L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I would highly recommend Frederick Sisto to anyone seeking legal representation that is fair, honest and will keep your best interest forefront. should the situation arise, i would not hesitate to seek representation from Frederick Sisto again.
Rmean
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was very professional, competent, and a pleasure to deal with I cant thank him enough I highly recommend his services
Mildred T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a fantastic attorney who is very informative, knows the system well, and is very thorough.
Bob V