State v. Rodney Bull(075919), 152 A.3d 942

Rodney Bull was convicted of offenses from two separate indictments arising from crimes committed within ten days in April 1990; he received a 50‑year discretionary extended term (May 1991) and later a 20‑year discretionary extended term (Oct 1992).
The second extended term was imposed for offenses committed before entry of the first extended term.
In 2012 Bull moved to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3:21‑10(b)(5), relying on State v. Hudson, which construed N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑5(b)(1) to prohibit a second discretionary extended term for offenses committed prior to the first extended term.
The trial court denied relief; the Appellate Division (unpublished) vacated the second extended term and remanded for resentencing, finding Hudson not a new rule and hence applicable retroactively.
The State petitioned for certification; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Hudson must be applied retroactively to Bull’s pre‑Hudson sentence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division: Hudson did not announce a new rule but merely clarified the plain statutory language; Bull’s second extended term is illegal and must be vacated and resentenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bull)	Held
Whether Hudson should be applied retroactively to a pre‑Hudson sentence	Hudson announced a new rule interpreting N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑5(b)(1); new rules are generally prospective, so Hudson should not apply retroactively	Hudson merely interpreted plain, longstanding statutory language; it did not create a new rule and therefore applies retroactively	Hudson did not create a new rule; it illuminated existing statutory language and thus applies retroactively; Bull’s second extended term is illegal
Whether the second discretionary extended term (for offenses committed before the first extended term) is permissible under N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑5(b)(1)	(State concedes) Under Hudson the second discretionary extended term would be illegal	The second extended term is illegal under the statute as clarified in Hudson; defendant is entitled to resentencing	Court affirms vacatur of the second extended term and remands for resentencing; State may elect which indictment to seek an extended term for on resentencing, with credit for time already served

State v. Hudson, 209 N.J. 513 (2012) (interpreting N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑5(b)(1) to bar a second discretionary extended term for offenses committed before the first extended term)
State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293 (2008) (framework for assessing whether a decision announces a new rule and retroactivity principles)
State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331 (1989) (factors for identifying a new rule: repudiation, new obligations, or results not dictated by precedent)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (explaining that interpreting plain statutory language does not create a new rule)
State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (2014) (remedies on resentencing, including crediting time already served when choosing which sentence to impose)