State v. Bass
197 A.3d 192
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- In 1983 Calvin Bass, age 14, participated in a home invasion that resulted in the victim's fatal beating; he was found with the murder weapon and stolen property.
- Family Part waived juvenile jurisdiction under the then-existing statute; Bass was tried, convicted of felony murder and related offenses, and sentenced to life with an aggregate parole disqualifier of 35 years.
- Bass exhausted direct appeal (affirmed), multiple PCR petitions, and federal habeas petitions over decades.
- In 2015 the Legislature amended the juvenile-waiver statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1)) to bar waiver to adult court for juveniles under 15; Bass filed a fourth PCR (2017) seeking retroactive application.
- The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the revised waiver statute did not clearly apply retroactively to fully adjudicated, long-final cases; it also rejected Bass’s claims that his sentence was illegal or that rehabilitative progress required resentencing.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the 2015 amendment has no retroactive effect on cases already waived, tried, and finally adjudicated; Bass’s sentence was not the functional equivalent of life without parole and rehabilitation is a parole-board matter.
Issues
| Issue | Bass's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1) (minimum waiver age) | The 2015 amendment barring waiver of juveniles under 15 should apply retroactively to his case, invalidating the prior waiver | The statute is not intended to reach concluded cases that were waived, tried, and finally adjudicated decades earlier | Statute does not apply retroactively to fully adjudicated, long-final cases like Bass’s; PCR denial affirmed |
| Sentence illegal as functional life without parole | Bass contends his sentence is tantamount to life without parole and thus unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment and state constitution | The State argues Bass’s parole disqualifier is 35 years and he is eligible for parole; sentence differs materially from Zuber-type de facto LWOP cases | Sentence is not the practical equivalent of LWOP here; no illegality found |
| Consideration of post‑conviction rehabilitation in collateral attack | Bass argues rehabilitation undermines original sentencing finding of non-amenability and warrants resentencing | The State argues rehabilitation is for parole-board review and not a basis for collateral attack on a sentence affirmed on direct appeal | Rehabilitation does not render sentence illegal; parole board is proper forum for consideration |
| Use of savings/ameliorative statute principles to alter disposition after finality | Bass relies on prior cases applying ameliorative statutes retroactively (C.F., J.F.) to support relief | The State stresses limits: savings statute and retroactivity reasoning don't extend to cases already waived, tried, and finally adjudicated long ago | Court distinguishes C.F./J.F. and rejects broad retroactivity where waiver, trial, conviction, sentencing, and appeals were long complete |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583 (2002) (explains PCR as New Jersey’s analogue to federal habeas and limits on collateral attack)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (standards limiting relitigation via PCR)
- State v. Zuber, 227 N.J. 422 (2017) (Eighth Amendment/Miller principles apply to de facto LWOP sentences; sentencing judges must consider youth-related mitigating factors)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juveniles are entitled to consideration of youth and attendant characteristics before life-without-parole type sentences)
- State in Interest of C.F., 444 N.J. Super. 179 (App. Div. 2016) (application of ameliorative sentencing provisions where penalty was not incurred until decades after offense)
- State in Interest of J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2016) (applied revised juvenile-waiver age provision in case-specific context; discussed retroactivity considerations)