New Jersey Section 2C:43-6.3 – Review of sentence
New Jersey Law Allows for Review of Mandatory Minimum Sentences – Here’s What You Need to Know
New Jersey has a law, Section 2C:43-6.3, that allows people serving mandatory minimum sentences under the Graves Act to have their sentences reviewed and potentially reduced. This law provides an important opportunity for relief for some individuals, but can be confusing to understand. As a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer, I want to explain this law in simple terms so people know if it could apply to them or their loved ones.The Graves Act is a New Jersey law that requires mandatory minimum prison terms for people convicted of certain gun crimes. For example, someone convicted of armed robbery with a gun would face a minimum 3 year sentence that the judge cannot reduce.But in 1989, the legislature passed 2C:43-6.3 to create a “safety valve” – a chance for some inmates to get their Graves Act sentences reviewed. Here’s how it works:
- It only applies to people who were serving a mandatory minimum Graves Act sentence on the day the law took effect in 1989. So it doesn’t apply to people sentenced after 1989.
- The inmate can file a motion to have their sentence reviewed. This goes to the judge who originally sentenced them.
- The prosecutor (State) needs to agree that the mandatory minimum sentence doesn’t serve “the interests of justice.” This is basically saying the sentence is unfair or excessive for that particular case.
- If the prosecutor agrees, the judge can either reduce the parole disqualifier to just 1 year, or place the person on probation instead of prison.
So in other words, if both the judge and prosecutor feel the mandatory minimum sentence was too harsh, they can “undo” it and give a lower sentence.This created an avenue for relief for some inmates already serving time under the Graves Act in 1989. However, some important limits exist:
- It only applies to the inmate’s first Graves Act conviction. If they have multiple convictions requiring mandatory minimums, this law only allows review of the first one.
- The inmate needs to not have been previously convicted of any Graves Act offenses before the one they are seeking review for.
- It does not apply to repeat Graves Act offenders. Only to those serving minimums for their first gun crime.
- The inmate cannot have already been discharged or paroled. They need to still be actively serving time when they request review.
- The prosecutor has to agree to a reduction. If they oppose, the judge cannot reduce the sentence.
So in practice, this law has provided a limited chance at early release for some inmates serving mandatory minimums under the Graves Act for a first time gun possession offense.It’s not an easy or guaranteed path to relief. The prosecutor has to recognize the unfairness of the original sentence. But it has offered a glimmer of hope for select inmates who can show their crime was an aberration and minimum wasn’t in the interests of justice.The law recognized mandatory minimums are rigid and don’t consider individual circumstances. A low-level, first time offender may deserve a break, even if they technically committed a Graves Act gun crime. So it allows for a second look in very limited cases.As a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve seen how inflexible mandatory minimums can be. This law was an attempt to inject some case-by-case analysis. But it’s complex and limited. Many inmates have tried to use it and been denied. Still, it’s worth understanding in case it could apply to provide relief in the right situation.The larger lesson here is mandatory minimum sentences often fail to deliver true justice. They apply rigid formulas without looking at each defendant’s culpability. Section 2C:43-6.3 was created to mitigate the worst injustices. But the better solution is relying more on judges’ discretion to impose fair sentences rather than one-size-fits-all statutes.Judges know the cases best. They should have more leeway to issue sentences based on the facts, not rigid formulas. Most advocates for criminal justice reform support eliminating mandatory minimums or at least increasing judicial discretion in sentencing.As we debate reforming sentencing laws, it’s worth looking at efforts like 2C:43-6.3. They demonstrate even legislators recognize sometimes minimum sentences go too far and lead to unjust outcomes. Giving judges more discretion would help avoid excessive punishment in the first place.Mandatory minimums are too blunt and arbitrary. Section 2C:43-6.3 provides a path to correct some of the worst abuses. But rather than sentence fairly from the start, it’s a complex effort to re-do unfair sentences after the fact. Ultimately, we must move away from excessive mandatory minimums and trust judges to impose just sentences.If you or a loved one are serving time under New Jersey’s Graves Act, it’s worth consulting an attorney to see if Section 2C:43-6.3 could provide any chance at relief. But lasting reform requires rethinking rigid mandatory sentencing laws that often do more harm than good. This law was an imperfect attempt to mitigate injustice. We must strive for a system that imposes fair and proportionate sentences from day one.