STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLTON L. BAILEY(14-10-1112, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3084-14T3

Defendant Carlton L. Bailey was convicted by a jury of third‑degree attempted escape, third‑degree possession of escape implements, and fourth‑degree unlawful possession of a weapon (a screw) while jailed awaiting sentencing. He was acquitted of possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes.
Officers discovered a screw wrapped with masking tape in defendant’s sock and a partially cut window frame in his cell; paint and tape matching the window were found in the cell. The screw fit the gouge in the window and came from a nearby phone back plate.
Inmate Steven Devine informed authorities of an escape plot implicating defendant; Devine cooperated for leniency. Other inmates (Hollins, Ferraro, Barcalow) testified for the defense, some acknowledging defendant had tattooed inmates and that a screw could be used for tattooing.
At trial the prosecutor impeached defense witnesses with prior convictions; some prior convictions were admitted without sanitization, others after Sands hearings the court limited as remote or unduly prejudicial. Defense did not object at trial to unsanitized disclosures.
The trial court sentenced defendant as a persistent offender to an extended seven‑year term with two years parole ineligibility, consecutive to an unrelated sentence; shorter concurrent terms were imposed/merged for other counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/sanitization of witnesses' prior convictions for impeachment	Prosecutor justified cross‑examination under N.J.R.E. 609 and Sands; court exercised discretion to admit convictions not found remote	Bailey argued unsanitized prior convictions improperly impeached defense witnesses and prejudiced his trial (raised on appeal)	No plain error; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the convictions and some were limited as remote or prejudicial
Excessiveness of extended, consecutive sentence	State argued sentencing followed statutory/Pierce process, defendant met persistent offender criteria, aggravating factors supported extension and consecutivity under Yarbough	Bailey argued court failed to separately analyze aggravating/mitigating factors and sentence was excessive	Affirmed: sentencing guidelines applied, findings supported by record, sentence not clearly unreasonable

State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91 (discussing plain‑error standard)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (standard for whether error led jury to different result)
State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (trial judge discretion on admissibility of prior convictions)
State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377 (sanitization rule when prior conviction is similar to charged offense)
State v. Hamilton, 193 N.J. 255 (trial court discretion to sanitize prior convictions beyond Brunson)
State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431 (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (appellate review limits on sentence length)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (standards to affirm sentence under guidelines)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (reasonableness standard for sentences)
State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (four‑step process for extended term sentencing)
State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80 (consideration of public protection and prior record in extended term)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (guidelines for consecutive vs concurrent sentences)