State v. Lawless
32 A.3d 562
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Lawless drove intoxicated, crossed the center line, and caused a fatal crash injuring others.
- Defendant pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a) and driving while intoxicated (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50).
- The court imposed a thirty-year term subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA) with 85% parole ineligibility.
- Judge identified aggravating factors two, three, six, and nine and gave them substantial weight; defendant challenged the application of some factors.
- Court vacated aggravating factors two and six as unsupported, remanding for resentencing; court allowed consideration of factors three and nine; remand within 90 days to reevaluate the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravating factor two was improperly applied | Lawless contends injuries to non-victim occupants cannot justify factor two. | Lawless argues the court erred by counting injuries to third parties not the single victim. | Aggravating factor two was not supported and vacated. |
| Whether aggravating factor six based on out-of-state convictions was proper | Lawless argues out-of-state DUIs should not count as NJ criminal history for factor six. | Lawless contends prior PA convictions are relevant to risk and deterrence. | Aggravating factor six not supported. |
| Whether aggravating factor three was properly applied to assess risk of reoffense | Aggravating factor three properly applied; record supports heightened risk. | ||
| Whether aggravating factor nine double-counted BAC | Lawless argues high BAC evidence was used already to prove recklessness and cannot double-count for deterrence. | Factor nine properly applied; no improper double counting found. | |
| Whether remand for resentencing is appropriate due to improper factors | Remand needed to reassess the sentence without the improper factors. | Remanded for reconsideration within 90 days; appellate review deferential but requires valid factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kromphold, 162 N.J. 345 (2000) (aggravating factor two allows total harm consideration but must be properly grounded)
- State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (2010) (explanation at sentencing is essential for meaningful review; deference to sentencing decision retained)
- State v. Jabbour, 118 N.J. 1 (1990) (appellate deference to properly identified aggravating/mitigating factors)
- State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) (remand for clarification when sentencing explanation is inadequate)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (requires reasons for consecutive terms; focus on procedural protections)
- State v. Travers, 229 N.J. Super. 144 (App.Div. 1988) (consideration of harm to victims' families in sentencing)
- State v. Devlin, 234 N.J. Super. 545 (App.Div. 1989) (permitting consideration of broader harm in sentencing for auto-related offenses)
- State v. Radziwil, 235 N.J. Super. 557 (App.Div. 1989) (aggravating factor two relates to harm to the victim, not relatives)
- State v. Thomas, 188 N.J. 137 (2006) (assessment of history and risk in applying aggravating factors)
- State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (1989) (general guidance on review of sentencing)
- State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165 (2009) (deference to sentencing under structured discretion; exception if sentence shocks conscience)