STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAWN D. HOLLABAUGH (08-04-0724 AND 11-05-0671, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5496-14T2

Background

Shawn D. Hollabaugh pleaded guilty in 2008 to third‑degree burglary and received a three‑year suspended sentence; he later violated conditions and was re‑sentenced to probation with jail time.
In 2011 he pleaded guilty to third‑degree possession of oxycodone (indictment) and third‑degree theft (accusation) with a negotiated drug‑court probation alternative; violation would trigger specified prison terms with parole‑ineligibility periods.
In 2012 he pleaded guilty to two counts of third‑degree bail jumping after leaving courthouse following a failed drug test; received another drug‑court probation alternative tied to prison terms if violated.
In April 2013 he admitted violating drug‑court probation and was sentenced to an aggregate nine‑year prison term with a four‑and‑one‑half year parole ineligibility period (after correcting an earlier illegal parole disqualifier on remand).
Hollabaugh moved under R. 3:21‑10(b)(4) & (5) for reduction/modification arguing Baylass required a lesser sentence or no parole disqualifier; Judge Nieves denied the motion; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hollabaugh)	Held
Whether the aggregate nine‑year sentence with 4.5 years parole ineligibility violated State v. Baylass	Sentence complied with sentencing standards; remand fixed any illegal parole disqualifier	Sentence violated Baylass because the court failed to provide sufficient basis for maximum/consecutive terms and parole disqualifiers	Court affirmed: sentence lawful; Baylass not violated and prior resentencing remedied illegal portion
Whether R. 3:21‑10(b)(4)/(b)(5) authorized reduction/correction of the sentence	Rule permits change/correction only for sentences unauthorized by law; no unauthorized residue remained	Rule should permit reduction because court inadequately justified parole disqualifiers and consecutive terms	Court held rule inapplicable: illegal portion already corrected; no basis to modify further
Whether the discretionary parole‑ineligibility periods violated the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi/Alleyne	Judge discretion to set parole ineligibility based on sentencing findings is constitutional	Parole disqualifiers increased punishment based on facts not submitted to a jury, implicating Apprendi/Alleyne	Court rejected constitutional challenge: Alleyne does not invalidate statutes allowing judicially‑determined minimum terms in this context
Whether issues previously litigated on direct appeal can be relitigated in collateral proceedings	Prior merits-based review bars relitigation of the same sentencing claim	Allowing relitigation is proper where defendant claims inadequate justification post‑resentencing	Court applied preclusion: issues already decided on direct appeal cannot be re‑litigated

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169 (1989) (framework for sentencing following violation of probation)
State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div. 2013) (sentencing framework for third‑ or fourth‑degree offenders with prior records)
State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (2014) (standard of review for sentences that allegedly violate law or guidelines)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (clarified Apprendi; court noted it did not render judicially‑found minimums categorically unconstitutional)
State v. Cusick, 116 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 1971) (preclusion of relitigation of issues decided on the merits)