State v. Shaquille A. Nance State v. Taja L. Willis Bolton State v. Alvin D. Williams(076626), 157 A.3d 439

Background

Three consolidated appeals (Nance, Willis-Bolton, Williams) arose from plea agreements in Graves Act firearm cases in which the State agreed to recommend sentences with only one year of parole ineligibility under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2 (a Graves Act waiver for first-time offenders).
Each defendant was sentenced consistent with the plea recommendation (one-year parole ineligibility custodial terms) rather than to probation. Records were unclear whether the assignment judge (or designee) made the statutory determination under § 6.2.
The Appellate Division vacated the sentences, holding sentencing judges (not just assignment judges) may choose between probation or a one-year custodial minimum under § 6.2, and remanded for resentencing.
The State sought certification, arguing § 6.2 vests the choice with the assignment judge (or designee) and that the presumption of incarceration for first- and second-degree offenses (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d)) still applies.
The Supreme Court held § 6.2 was misapplied and remanded for resentencing, clarifying that the assignment judge (or delegated presiding judge) — not the sentencing judge — decides between probation or a one-year mandatory minimum, and that for first- or second-degree Graves Act offenders the presumption of incarceration under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) must be considered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who decides between probation or one-year custodial minimum under § 6.2?	State: assignment judge (or designee) has exclusive authority; sentencing judge may refer but cannot choose.	Defs: sentencing judge has discretion to impose probation despite plea recommendation.	Assignment judge (or designee) has authority to elect probation or one-year custodial minimum under § 6.2; sentencing judge must follow that determination.
Whether § 6.2 permits sentencing judge to override prosecutor/assignment judge choice	State: § 6.2 does not empower sentencing judge to choose; prosecutor may seek waiver but assignment judge decides.	Defs: sentencing judge not bound by State’s recommendation and may impose probation.	Sentencing judge cannot elect between § 6.2 alternatives; may impose sentence consistent with assignment judge’s ruling but retains usual discretion on other sentencing terms.
Role of presumption of incarceration (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d)) for 1st/2nd-degree Graves Act offenders when § 6.2 applies	State: presumption still applies and must be considered by assignment judge/designee.	Defs: § 6.2’s waiver procedure allows choice between probation and one-year custody without applying the presumption.	For first- and second-degree convictions, assignment judge/designee must consider the presumption of incarceration (‘‘serious injustice’’ standard) when choosing between the § 6.2 alternatives.
Remedy where record is unclear whether § 6.2 procedure was followed	State: require assignment-judge determination on remand; uphold valid pleas if procedure followed.	Defs: resentencing before sentencing judge with full discretion.	Vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing; assignment judge or designee must make the § 6.2 determination and then sentencing court applies Code provisions.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (N.J. 2014) (background on Graves Act scope)
State v. Stewart, 96 N.J. 596 (N.J. 1984) (Graves Act context)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (N.J. 2011) (plea recommendations do not bind sentencing discretion)
State v. Warren, 115 N.J. 433 (N.J. 1989) (parties cannot bind court to a specific sentence)
State v. Jabbour, 118 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1990) (‘‘serious injustice’’ exception is narrow)
State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355 (N.J. 2003) (application of ‘‘serious injustice’’ standard)
State v. Des Marets, 92 N.J. 62 (N.J. 1983) (legislative purpose of the Graves Act)
State v. Haliski, 140 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1995) (statutory interpretation avoiding absurd results)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (N.J. 1984) (presumption of imprisonment principles)
State v. Rivera, 124 N.J. 122 (N.J. 1991) (human-cost analysis in sentencing)
State v. Greeley, 178 N.J. 38 (N.J. 2003) (reading related statutes in pari materia)
State v. Federanko, 26 N.J. 119 (N.J. 1958) (legislative familiarity with cognate laws)