STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES CLAUSELL (95-08-0512, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1057-15T3

James Clausell was convicted in 1986 of capital murder for a 1984 killing; initially sentenced to death but the NJ Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to deficient jury instruction (State v. Clausell).
After retrial in 1995–1996, a jury convicted Clausell of first‑degree murder and other charges, finding he did not act knowingly/purposefully; he received life with parole ineligibility and concurrent sentences for related offenses.
Clausell pursued multiple postconviction remedies: an initial PCR petition and appeal (denied), a federal habeas petition (denied), a second PCR (time‑barred/denied), and an unauthorized second federal habeas (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
In August 2015 Clausell moved in the trial court for an updated presentence report, claiming the report transmitted to corrections relied on outdated 1986 trial facts rather than facts from the 1995 retrial and that this would affect classification and parole.
The trial court denied the motion (Sept. 8, 2015), concluding it was not required to order an updated report under Rule 3:21‑2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑6; Clausell appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the 1996 presentence report supplemented the 1986 report, complied with the rule/statute, and that Clausell had not shown any legal basis requiring a court‑ordered update nearly twenty years after sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying an order for an updated presentence report	State: Trial court properly followed Rule 3:21‑2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑6; no obligation to update report decades later	Clausell: The report transmitted to DOC used facts from the 1986 trial not reflective of the 1995 retrial and could adversely affect classification/parole; court should order updated report	Affirmed: No rule or statute requires ordering an updated presentence report long after sentencing; 1996 report supplemented 1986 report and complied with requirements; Clausell could have objected earlier

State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298 (1990) (reversal and remand for new trial due to deficient jury instruction)
State v. Mance, 300 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1997) (resentencing required where court relied on an irrelevant/outdated presentence report)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
Clausell v. Sherrer, 594 F.3d 191 (3d Cir.) (federal habeas denial affirmed)