Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:44-5 – Multiple sentences; concurrent and consecutive terms.

New Jersey Section 2C:44-5 – Multiple sentences; concurrent and consecutive terms

New Jersey statute 2C:44-5 deals with how courts in the state handle sentencing when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses. It sets out the rules for whether multiple sentences will run concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (back-to-back). This can have a huge impact on how much total time a defendant ultimately serves.

Overview of the law

The law states that when a defendant is sentenced for multiple offenses, the default is that the sentences will run concurrently. That means if someone is sentenced to 5 years for offense A and 3 years for offense B, the total time served would be 5 years – the sentences overlap.

However, the law gives judges discretion to order consecutive sentences if certain conditions are met. The main factors judges can consider are:

• If the crimes involved multiple victims
• If the crimes were committed at different times or places, indicating separate criminal objectives
• The nature and circumstances of the offenses

If the judge finds consecutive sentences are warranted, they must state their reasons on the record. The law also limits consecutive sentences for some third and fourth degree crimes.

When consecutive sentences can be imposed

The main situations where consecutive sentences often come into play are:

1. Multiple victims

If a defendant is convicted of crimes with multiple victims – like robbing two different banks or assaulting two different people – judges can impose consecutive sentences. The rationale is that each victim deserves their own separate punishment.

For example, if someone robbed one bank and got 5 years, then robbed another bank and got 3 years, the judge could order those sentences to be served consecutively for a total of 8 years.

2. Separate criminal episodes

If a defendant commits multiple crimes at different times and places, this can show they had separate criminal objectives. For example, if someone commits a burglary on Monday, then commits an assault on Tuesday, the sentences can be consecutive since they were distinct events.

3. Extremely serious offenses

For very serious crimes like murder, judges often exercise their discretion to impose consecutive sentences. The rationale is to impose maximum punishment for the most egregious offenses.

Limits on consecutive sentences

While judges have broad discretion, there are some limits in the statute:

• Consecutive sentences cannot exceed the maximum term allowed for the most serious offense. For example, if the longest single sentence is 10 years, the total consecutive sentence cannot exceed 10 years.
• For third and fourth degree crimes, the total term for consecutive sentences cannot exceed 5 years.
• The overall extent of consecutive sentences must be “reasonable and just.” Judges are supposed to take into account factors like the defendant’s age, background, and prospect for rehabilitation.

Pros and cons of consecutive sentencing

Like most sentencing issues, there are good-faith arguments on both sides about the pros and cons of consecutive sentencing:

Pros

• It can punish repeat or egregious offenders more harshly.
• It allows sentences to address the severity of each distinct crime.
• It prevents a “volume discount” where someone gets less time for multiple crimes.

Cons

• It produces very long sentences that some argue are excessive.
• It limits judges’ ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances.
• It reduces incentives for rehabilitation since the sentences are so long.
• It can contribute to prison overcrowding.

Overall, consecutive sentencing involves a trade-off between imposing just punishment and exercising mercy. Reasonable minds can disagree on where to strike the right balance. The law tries to strike a compromise by giving judges discretion while imposing some limits.

Notable cases involving consecutive sentencing

Here are some notable NJ cases that illustrate how consecutive sentencing works:

• State v. Carey – The defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 58 years for robbing multiple motels at gunpoint. The court upheld the sentences, noting the robberies were separate acts that terrified multiple victims.
• State v. Ellis – The court upheld consecutive sentences for a man who shot and killed two victims. The court said consecutive sentences were appropriate given there were two murders at two different times and places.
• State v. Mosley – The court reversed consecutive sentences for low-level drug crimes, finding the total 50-year term was not “reasonable and just” given the minor nature of the offenses. This shows the limits on consecutive terms.

Conclusion

The consecutive versus concurrent sentencing decision can greatly impact the real-world punishment a defendant faces. New Jersey law tries to strike a balance by giving judges flexibility while avoiding excessive sentences. There are good arguments on both sides, and reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the lines. The statute aims for a compromise approach, but the debate continues on how far consecutive sentencing powers should extend.