State of New Jersey v. James Boykins, 146 A.3d 674

James Boykins, a recidivist, was convicted in New Jersey of kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault (Indictment I) and received a discretionary extended term (life with 25 years parole ineligibility) after trial.
While out on probation and on bail awaiting trial on Indictment I, Boykins kidnapped and raped a different victim; he was later tried, convicted (Indictment II), and received a second discretionary extended term consecutive to the first.
After Pennington and later Hudson clarified limits on imposing multiple extended terms for offenses committed before an earlier sentence, Boykins sought post-conviction relief claiming his second extended term was illegal.
The Law Division denied relief, distinguishing Hudson on the ground that Boykins committed the Indictment II offenses while "in custody" (i.e., on bail/probation) under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5b, making the second extended term permissible.
On appeal, the Appellate Division assumed Hudson applied retroactively and addressed whether being on bail/probation qualifies as "in custody" under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5b; it affirmed, holding "in custody" includes release on bail/recognizance for purposes of that statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5 prohibits imposition of multiple extended terms here	State: Hudson bars a second extended term for an offense committed before imposition of a first extended term unless committed while in custody	Boykins: Second extended term is illegal because he was not "in custody" when he committed the second offense (he was on bail/probation)	Court: Statute permits exception for offenses "committed while in custody," and that phrase includes defendants released on bail/recognizance or on probation, so second extended term was lawful
Whether Boykins is entitled to retroactive Hudson relief	State: Hudson analysis governs but retroactivity issue is effectively resolved elsewhere; not the pivotal question here	Boykins: Hudson should apply retroactively to invalidate his sentence	Court: Assumed Hudson retroactive for purposes of appeal but resolved case on interpretation of "in custody," so no need to re-decide retroactivity here

State v. Hudson, 209 N.J. 513 (clarified that multiple extended terms generally prohibited for offenses committed before an earlier sentence)
State v. Pennington, 418 N.J. Super. 548 (App. Div.) (addressed legality of second extended term imposed for preexisting offenses)
State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (distinguished jail credit and gap-time credit; jail credit governed by rule, gap-time by statute)
State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (advises consulting MPC and its commentary when Code provision mirrors MPC)
State v. Sutton, 132 N.J. 471 (discusses 1983 amendments aimed at stiffening penalties for crimes committed while released)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (rejecting any interpretation that would create a "free crime" immunity)
State v. Towey, 114 N.J. 69 (addresses jail-credit rules and when a defendant is "in custody" for that purpose)
State v. Mirakaj, 268 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div.) (construed conditions of release for jail-credit purposes)