State v. Zuber
152 A.3d 197
N.J.2017Background
- Two defendants (Ricky Zuber and James Comer) committed violent crimes as juveniles and received very long aggregated term-of-years sentences that yield decades of parole ineligibility (Zuber: 110 years total, 55 years parole ineligibility; Comer: 75 years total, 68 years+ parole ineligibility).
- At original sentencing judges did not apply the Supreme Court’s juvenile-sentencing principles (Miller/Graham) because those decisions postdated the sentencing in these cases.
- Zuber challenged his aggregated consecutive term-of-years sentence as the functional equivalent of life without parole under Graham; the Appellate Division upheld it using general life-expectancy tables.
- Comer had already obtained a trial-court determination that Miller considerations were not applied at his original sentencing and sought resentencing; procedural challenges were raised but the court reached the merits.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court held that Miller’s requirement to account for "youth and its attendant characteristics" applies equally to term-of-years sentences that are the practical equivalent of life without parole and requires consideration of Miller factors at sentencing and before imposing consecutive terms.
- The Court remanded both cases for resentencing and urged the Legislature to consider a statutory scheme for later review of lengthy juvenile sentences (declining to adopt a bright-line parole-ineligibility cap itself).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller/Graham protections apply to lengthy aggregate term-of-years sentences that function as life without parole | Zuber/Comer: lengthy parole-ineligibility terms are the functional equivalent of life without parole and must be subject to Miller/Graham protections and resentencing | State/AG: Graham/Miller apply only to formal life-without-parole schemes or single offenses; consecutive term-of-years sentences need not trigger those protections | The Court: Miller’s principles apply when an aggregate term yields a de facto life-without-parole outcome; judges must consider Miller factors at initial sentencing and before ordering consecutive terms that produce lengthy parole ineligibility |
| Whether sentencing judges must consider Miller factors before imposing consecutive sentences on juveniles | Zuber/Comer: consecutive aggregate exposure must trigger individualized Miller analysis | State: traditional sentencing law and Yarbough suffice; no extension needed | The Court: courts must exercise heightened care and apply Miller factors plus Yarbough criteria before imposing consecutive sentences that produce lengthy terms |
| Use of life-expectancy tables to determine whether a term is a functional life sentence | Zuber: tables unreliable; suggests rule (e.g., resentencing after 30 years) | State/AG: life-expectancy tables inappropriate; reliance supports affirmance in Zuber | The Court: rejects use of general life-expectancy tables as dispositive (risk of demographic disparities); focus on real-time impact instead |
| Whether courts or Legislature should set bright-line limits or periodic review for juvenile lengthy sentences | Amici/defendants urged bright-line (e.g., 30 years) or periodic review | State/AG defended judicial discretion; opposed demographic-based actuarial schemes | The Court: declines to impose a statutory cap; invites Legislature to consider statutory schemes for later review and appointed counsel; leaves details to Legislature and future litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death penalty unconstitutional; juveniles differ psychologically from adults)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders forbidden; must provide meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencing must account for youth’s mitigating qualities)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. (Miller announced a substantive rule applicable retroactively; juveniles must be given opportunity to show they are not irreparably corrupt)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (criteria for imposing consecutive sentences)