STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARCQUESE W. PAISLEY (15-06-0720, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4154-15T2

On Nov. 30, 2014, Marcquese Paisley forced his way into an Edison apartment, displayed a large knife, and ordered three occupants (T.S., H.S., J.C.) into a bathroom.
Paisley threatened to cut J.C.'s throat and to stab T.S., kept them confined in the bathroom for about 20 minutes, then left.
Victims identified Paisley to police; he later admitted the offense during a station interview and said he had been drinking.
A grand jury indicted Paisley on multiple counts; under a plea agreement he pled guilty to amended second-degree kidnapping (N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)) and third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d)).
Paisley moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the plea colloquy lacked a factual basis for kidnapping (no "substantial distance" or "substantial period"); the trial court denied the motion and sentenced him to nine years on the kidnapping count (concurrent five years on the weapons count).
On appeal, Paisley challenged (1) sufficiency of the factual basis for the kidnapping plea and (2) the length of the sentence under applicable sentencing standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an adequate factual basis at plea for second-degree kidnapping under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)?	The State relied on the plea colloquy where defendant admitted pushing victims into the bathroom, brandishing a knife, threatening them, and holding them ~20 minutes — facts establishing confinement/isolation and risk.	Paisley argued the record did not show movement a "substantial distance" nor confinement for a "substantial period" necessary for the statute.	Affirmed — plea colloquy established isolation and increased risk (satisfying substantial distance) and confinement for a substantial period (~20 minutes).
Did the sentencing court abuse its discretion or fail to follow Case in imposing nine years?	The State argued aggravating factors (risk of reoffense, need for deterrence) were supported by defendant's prior convictions, probation violations, and commission of this crime while on strict probation.	Paisley argued mitigation (intoxication, mental/childhood issues, remorse, cooperation) warranted lesser sentence and the judge failed to follow Case.	Affirmed — appellate court found aggravating factors supported, requested mitigating factors not amply supported by record, and sentence did not shock the conscience.

State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218 (requirement that plea colloquy address each element; factual basis for plea)
State ex rel. T.M. v. X, 166 N.J. 319 (defendant must admit acts constituting crime)
State v. Barboza, 115 N.J. 415 (remedy for inadequate factual basis — vacate plea)
State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393 (de novo review of denial to vacate plea for inadequate factual basis)
State v. Perez, 220 N.J. 423 (need for comprehensive factual basis at plea)
State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394 (analysis of "substantial distance" and "substantial period" elements for kidnapping)
State v. Masino, 94 N.J. 436 ("substantial distance" not purely linear; isolation/increased risk test)
State v. Purnell, 394 N.J. Super. 28 (additional risk/isolation supports substantial distance)
State v. Matarama, 306 N.J. Super. 6 (short linear movement can be substantial if it increases isolation/risk)
State v. La France, 117 N.J. 583 (confinement more than incidental to underlying crime for "substantial period")
State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (standards for finding mitigating factors and sentencing analysis)