State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330

Defendant Randolph faced five Essex County indictments for separate weapons incidents, two of which involved assault; he pled guilty in 2002 to a subset of counts under a plea agreement.
At sentencing in 2002, Randolph received three consecutive maximum terms totaling 20 years, with 8.5 years’ parole ineligibility under NERA and Graves Act, without on-record justification for the consecutive terms.
Appellate review remanded for resentencing under Natale; the first remand preserved the same sentences after the court determined presumptive terms were not required in weighing.
On remand, Randolph challenged the three consecutive maximum terms; State argued consecutive terms were within trial court discretion due to separate victims, while defense urged broader considerations of Miller and Pennington.
Before the second remand, Randolph moved to admit evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation (drug treatment, GED, programs) to influence resentencing; the trial court refused, deeming it outside the remand scope.
Appellate Division ordered a second remand for reconsideration and justification of the three consecutive maximum terms; the majority held rehabilitation evidence could be considered on remand, reversing and remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May post-sentencing rehabilitation be considered on remand?	Randolph: remand to reconsider both consecutive nature and maximum terms invites rehabilitative evidence.	State: remand limited to original scope; rehabilitation evidence should not be admitted.	Yes; rehabilitation evidence permissible on remand seeking reconsideration of consecutive maximum terms.
Should the resentencing view the defendant as of the remand date?	Randolph: must view defendant anew, considering current information.	State: limited remand to record as of original sentencing; no new rehabilitation factors.	Resentencing must view defendant as he appears on the remand date unless remand specifies a restricted scope.
Does the remand order here authorize unlimited remand or a limited one?	Randolph: remand ostensibly broad to reconsider and justify maximum terms; should include full reweighing.	State: remand was limited to justification of the three consecutive terms only.	Remand here was broad enough to require reweighing aggravating/mitigating factors and consideration of rehabilitation.

Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (allows consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation on remand when sentence is vacated or remanded)
State v. Towey, 244 N.J. Super. 582 (App.Div. 1990) (recognizes all current information relevant to aggravating/mitigating factors; distinguishes resentencing vs. limited remand)
State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005) (establishes framework for resentencing and weighs aggravating/mitigating factors; emphasizes full record and uniformity)
State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112 (1987) (requires explicit Miller analysis when imposing consecutive maximum terms)
State v. Pennington, 154 N.J. 344 (1998) (limits on consecutive sentences and necessity of articulated reasoning)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (outlines criteria for consecutive vs concurrent sentencing and remand for proper justification)