State v. Friedman, 35 A.3d 1163

Defendant pled guilty to three second-degree counts arising from separate assaults on his wife during 2006 under a negotiated plea with consecutive NERA terms.
The plea included waivers: defendant would not argue for concurrent sentences and the state would recommend specific consecutive sentences with 3-year parole supervision terms.
The trial court explained that, under NERA, each count carries a three-year parole supervision term to be served after incarceration, with the possibility of re-incarceration for parole violations.
The court informed defendant that the parole terms would run consecutively with the custodial terms, and defendant acknowledged understanding and waived related claims under Yarbough.
At sentencing, the court imposed the State’s recommended sentence with parole supervision to be served consecutively; defendant appealed, challenging the parole-concurrent issue and other aspects.
Appellate Division reversed, holding parole supervision under NERA run concurrently with consecutive sentences; the State petitioned for certification and the Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NERA parole terms run consecutively.	State argues parole runs consecutively with prison terms.	Friedman contends parole must run concurrently with consecutive terms.	Parole terms must run consecutively.
Validity of the plea provision restricting concurrent sentencing argument.	State contends the clause is permissible and non-binding on sentencing court.	Friedman argues Hess invalidates such restrictions as ineffective assistance.	Plea provision restricting concurrent- sentence argument is permissible; Hess does not require relief here.
Whether the trial court properly applied Yarbough in sentencing for multiple offenses.	State asserts proper analysis and discretion supported consecutive terms.	Friedman claims improper consideration and potential bias; argues Hess/Yarbough guidance applies differently.	Consecutive sentences appropriate; Yarbough standards satisfied.

State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (guides consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing to ensure punishment fits the crime)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (2011) (defendant deprived of effective assistance when plea restricts sentencing arguments)
State v. Freudenberger, 358 N.J. Super. 162 (App.Div. 2003) (parole supervision under NERA is unique from general parole statute)
State v. Cheung, 328 N.J. Super. 368 (App.Div. 2000) (NERA parole as mandatory; parallels with other parole provisions)
Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (2009) (statutory interpretation requires discernment of legislative intent)
State v. Baker, 198 N.J. 189 (2009) (principles for statutory interpretation and not substituting court views)