STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ISAIAH H. CHIASTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAREN COLEYÂ (15-06-0987 AND 15-05-0721, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-3718-15T1/A-4144-15T1

Background

Two defendants (Isaiah H. Chia and Daren Coley) pled guilty to second-degree possession of a handgun and entered plea agreements in which the State agreed to recommend five years with one year parole ineligibility but refused to consent to a Graves Act § 6.2 probationary waiver.
Each defendant moved to the assignment judge seeking review of the prosecutor’s refusal under Alvarez (claiming the interests of justice would support a § 6.2 waiver); Judge Peter J. Bariso denied both motions in written opinions without holding additional hearings.
Sentencing proceeded: both defendants received the State’s recommended sentence; Chia’s counsel and the sentencing judge proceeded under the mistaken belief the sentencing judge lacked discretion to impose a term below the five-year recommendation.
On appeal, defendants argued they were entitled to a hearing and full sentencing rights (allocution, presence, counsel) at the § 6.2 stage, and that the sentencing judge had discretion to impose a lesser sentence notwithstanding the assignment judge’s denial.
The panel affirmed Coley’s sentence but concluded Chia’s sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because the sentencing court had (post-Alvarez denial) discretion to impose a sentence different from the State’s recommended five years, a point clarified by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Nance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a hearing is required when the assignment judge denies review of a prosecutor’s § 6.2 waiver refusal (Alvarez motion)	State: § 6.2 authorizes assignment-judge review only upon a defendant’s Alvarez showing; no hearing required absent a preliminary showing of arbitrary/prosecutorial abuse	Defendants: denial was a sentencing decision implicating allocution, presence, counsel and due process rights; thus a hearing was required	Held: Denial of an Alvarez motion is not itself a sentencing; defendants must first show prosecutorial arbitrariness/patent and gross abuse to obtain a hearing; no hearing required here because defendants conceded no arbitrariness.
Whether sentencing judge may impose a sentence different from the prosecutor’s plea recommendation after assignment judge denies § 6.2 relief	State: once assignment judge denies probationary waiver, sentencing court must impose the one-year parole-ineligibility custodial component and may follow plea recommendation	Defendants: sentencing judge had no discretion or, alternatively, believed no discretion and thus resentencing is required	Held: After assignment judge denies § 6.2 relief, the assignment judge (not the sentencing judge) decides probation vs. one-year parole-ineligibility; however, the sentencing judge is not bound to impose the State’s recommended base term and may craft a sentence that conforms to the assignment judge’s ruling; Chia’s sentencing proceeded under an incorrect premise, so remand for resentencing was required.
Whether defendants are entitled to discovery of prosecutors’ § 6.2/waiver files to show disparate treatment	State: discovery not mandated absent preliminary showing of arbitrary/discriminatory conduct	Defendants: need discovery to show prosecutorial abuse/disparate treatment	Held: Followed Benjamin/Nance: no automatic discovery; defendant must first make the Alvarez-level preliminary showing.
Standard and remedy for challenging prosecutor’s refusal to consent to § 6.2 relief	State: prosecutor’s decision reviewed for arbitrariness/patent and gross abuse; defendant may move to assignment judge under Alvarez	Defendants: broader rights at sentencing stage should apply to § 6.2 decisions	Held: Reaffirmed Alvarez/Benjamin standard: defendant must show arbitrariness/abuse to obtain hearing and relief; remedies limited to Alvarez-type review.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nance, 228 N.J. 378 (2017) (assignment judge, not sentencing judge, chooses between § 6.2 alternatives; sentencing judge may, however, impose a sentence different than prosecutor's plea recommendation)
State v. Benjamin, 228 N.J. 358 (2017) (clarifies § 6.2 procedure and reiterates prosecutor must approve waiver; explains Alvarez-review framework)
State v. Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div. 1991) (defendant may seek assignment-judge review of prosecutor’s waiver denial upon showing arbitrary or gross abuse of discretion)
State v. Mastapeter, 290 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1996) (discusses scope of review of prosecutorial waiver decisions under Alvarez)
State v. Watson, 346 N.J. Super. 521 (App. Div. 2002) (explains defendant must show patent and gross abuse to challenge prosecutor’s refusal)