Yarbough factors in New Jersey

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026"When a sentencing court properly evaluates the Yarbough factors in light of the record, the court's decision will not normally be disturbed on appeal." State v. Miller, A-4102-23 53 205 N.J. 109, 129 (2011).

2026"When a sentencing court properly evaluates the Yarbough factors in light of the record, the court's decision will not normally be disturbed on appeal." State v. Miller, A-4102-23 53 205 N.J. 109, 129 (2011).

2025In Abdullah, the Court reminded trial judges "that when imposing either consecutive or concurrent sentences, '[t]he focus should be on the fairness of the overall sentence,' and that they should articulate the reasons for their decisions with specific reference to the Yarbough factors." 184 N.J. at 515 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 122 (1987)).

2025In Abdullah, the Court reminded trial judges "that when imposing either consecutive or concurrent sentences, '[t]he focus should be on the fairness of the overall sentence,' and that they should articulate the reasons for their decisions with specific reference to the Yarbough factors." 184 N.J. at 515 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 122 (1987)).

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2026The Yarbough Court enumerated five specific facts sentencing courts should consider, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior; (d) any of the crimes involved multiple victims; (e) the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numerous. [Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 644.]

2019A "court may impose consecutive sentences even though a majority of the Yarbough factors support concurrent sentences." Id. at 427-28; see also State v. Swint, 328 N.J.

2018Thus, a court may impose consecutive sentences "even though a majority of the Yarbough factors support concurrent sentences." Id. at 427-28 ; see, e.g., State v. Molina, 168 N.J. 436 (2001) (finding consecutive sentences were warranted despite the presence of only one Yarbough factor); see also State v. Swint, 328 N.J.

2026An explanation of the "overall fairness" is necessary "to 'foster[] consistency in . . . sentencing in that arbitrary or irrational sentencing can be curtailed and, if necessary, corrected through appellate review.'" State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 , 272 (2021) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 166-67 (2006)).

2026An explanation of the "overall fairness" is necessary "to 'foster[] consistency in . . . sentencing in that arbitrary or irrational sentencing can be curtailed and, if necessary, corrected through appellate review.'" State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 , 272 (2021) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 166-67 (2006)).

2022Super. at 19 (App. Div. 2020) (vacating the consecutive sentences and remanding resentencing due to absence of "findings of the Yarbough factors"); State v. Soto, 385 N.J.

2022Super. at 19 (App. Div. 2020) (vacating the consecutive sentences and remanding resentencing due to absence of "findings of the Yarbough factors"); State v. Soto, 385 N.J.

2022With these principles in mind, in the absence of findings by the trial court addressing the Yarbough factors, the overall fairness of the sentence, and the "serious injustice" standard under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5, "we are compelled to remand this case for resentencing" because "[a] statement of reasons is a necessary prerequisite for adequate appellate review of sentencing decisions." Randolph, 210 N.J. at 353 (quoting State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 122 (1987)).

2022With these principles in mind, in the absence of findings by the trial court addressing the Yarbough factors, the overall fairness of the sentence, and the "serious injustice" standard under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5, "we are compelled to remand this case for resentencing" because "[a] statement of reasons is a necessary prerequisite for adequate appellate review of sentencing decisions." Randolph, 210 N.J. at 353 (quoting State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 122 (1987)).

2025In considering alleged facts from dismissed charges and by speculating defendant obtained the gun for a purpose other than the Family Dollar robbery, the judge did not "faithfully pair[] the Yarbough factors with the facts as found by the jury." State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 182 (2009).

2025In considering alleged facts from dismissed charges and by speculating defendant obtained the gun for a purpose other than the Family Dollar robbery, the judge did not "faithfully pair[] the Yarbough factors with the facts as found by the jury." State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 182 (2009).

2025Therefore, courts should apply the five factual inquiries of Yarbough "qualitatively, not quantitatively." Ibid. "[A] sentencing court may impose consecutive sentences even though a majority of the Yarbough factors support concurrent sentences." Id. at 427-28 ; see also State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 177 (1991) (upholding imposition of consecutive sentences despite four of Yarbough's five factors militating in favor of concurrent sentences).

2018However, "a sentencing court may impose consecutive sentences even though a majority of the Yarbough factors support concurrent sentences." Carey, 168 N.J. at 427 -28 (citing State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 177 (1991) (finding consecutive sentences proper even though four of Yarbough's five factors favored concurrent sentences)).

2017See State v. Eisenman, 153 N.J. 462 (1998). 8 We note, however, that the judge in this case never addressed any of the other Yarbough factors at all. "[A] trial court is expected to give 'a separate statement of reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences.'" Molina, supra, 168 (continued) 32 A-2193-08T4 However, "[t]he fact that two consecutive terms of imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed in multiple-victims cases does not prevent the sentencing court from setting the base term of each sentence below the maximum provided by the Code." Carey, supra, 168 N.J. at 430 .

2017See State v. Eisenman, 153 N.J. 462 (1998). 8 We note, however, that the judge in this case never addressed any of the other Yarbough factors at all. "[A] trial court is expected to give 'a separate statement of reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences.'" Molina, supra, 168 (continued) 32 A-2193-08T4 However, "[t]he fact that two consecutive terms of imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed in multiple-victims cases does not prevent the sentencing court from setting the base term of each sentence below the maximum provided by the Code." Carey, supra, 168 N.J. at 430 .

2021It is by weighing those considerations that a court determines whether this factor “renders the collective group of offenses distinctively worse than the group of offenses would be were that circumstance not present.” Carey, 168 N.J. at 428 (quoting People v. Leung, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 290, 303 (Ct. App. 1992)).7 Beyond listing those informative factors, though, Yarbough does not direct an outcome, remaining true to the Code’s failure to create either a presumption of consecutive or concurrent sentences for multiple offenses, against which the factors are to be considered. 7 In making that stateme

2019The Court required a judge conducting a Yarbough analysis to “determine whether the Yarbough factor under consideration ‘renders the collective group of offenses distinctively worse than the group of offenses would be were that circumstance not present.’” Id. at 428 (quoting People v. Leung, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 290, 303 (Ct. App. 1992)).

2024Instead, the sentencing court must consider all the Yarbough guidelines, with emphasis on the five subparts of the third guideline: (1) "the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other"; (2) "the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence"; (3) "the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior"; (4) "any of the crimes involved multiple victims"; and (5) "the convictions for which the sentences are to be imposed are numer

2024State v. Rogers, 124 N.J. 113, 121 (1991).

2023The Yarbough factors essentially focus upon "the nature and number of offenses for which the defendant is being sentenced, whether the offenses occurred at different times or places, and whether they involve numerous or separate victims." State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 423 (2001) (quoting State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169, 180 (1989)).

2023The Yarbough factors essentially focus upon "the nature and number of offenses for which the defendant is being sentenced, whether the offenses occurred at different times or places, and whether they involve numerous or separate victims." State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 423 (2001) (quoting State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169, 180 (1989)).

2011The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence.” See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.25 308 (1986).

2011The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence.” See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.25 308 (1986).

2011The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence.” See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.25 308 (1986).

2011The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence.” See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.25 308 (1986).

2011NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). [2] The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence." See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A. 2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed. 2d 308 (1986).

2011NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). [2] The court, however, remanded to the Law Division for resentencing on count three, the endangering conviction, because "the trial court failed to specifically address the Yarbough factors in deciding whether to impose a consecutive sentence." See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 , 498 A. 2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 , 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed. 2d 308 (1986).

2022We consider whether the trial court has made findings of fact grounded in "reasonably credible evidence[,]" whether the factfinder applied "correct legal principles in exercising . . . discretion," and whether "application of the facts to the law [has resulted in] such a clear error of judgment that it shocks the judicial conscience." State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 363-64 (1984) (citations omitted).

2022See State v. Rivera, 249 N.J. 285 , 297-98 (2021) (holding a reviewing court must affirm a sentence "unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found were not 'based upon competent credible evidence in the record;' or (3) 'the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience'" (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984))).

2026Nevertheless, remand is unnecessary if the record "makes it possible to 'readily deduce' the judge's reasoning." Miller, 205 N.J. at 129 (quoting Bieniek, 200 N.J. at 609).

2024Nevertheless, remand is unnecessary if the record "makes it possible to 'readily deduce' the judge's reasoning." Miller, 205 N.J. at 129 (quoting Bieniek, 200 N.J. at 609 ).

2023We reject defendant's contention the judge violated the holding in State v. Marinez, which admonished that in reviewing the length of a sentence, courts must "be mindful of the real-time consequences of NERA and the role that it customarily plays in the fashioning of an appropriate sentence." 370 N.J.

2023We reject defendant's contention the judge violated the holding in State v. Marinez, which admonished that in reviewing the length of a sentence, courts must "be mindful of the real-time consequences of NERA and the role that it customarily plays in the fashioning of an appropriate sentence." 370 N.J.

2022He argues "several Yarbough factors . . . would have weighed heavily in favor of running J.G.'s sentences concurrently." His arguments have merit. "[Our] review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010).

2022The State argues that where a defendant is sentenced in accordance with a plea agreement that explicitly calls for consecutive sentences for separate crimes, "no Yarbough analysis is required." "[Our] review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010).

2017He faults the trial court for imposing three consecutive sentences, for imposing a sentence disproportionately harsher than the sentences imposed on Thompson and another co-defendant, McClendon, and for violating the tenets of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 489 , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2475 , 183 L.Ed. 2d 407, 430 (2012), when it failed to give weight to his young age at the time he committed the crime. 45 A-5071-13T1 A. We note that Holdren's convictions for the murder of Montgomery and attempted murders of Logan and Stallworth meet five Yarbough factors: (1) the crimes were clearly independent a

2017He faults the trial court for imposing three consecutive sentences, for imposing a sentence disproportionately harsher than the sentences imposed on Thompson and another co-defendant, McClendon, and for violating the tenets of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 489 , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2475 , 183 L.Ed. 2d 407, 430 (2012), when it failed to give weight to his young age at the time he committed the crime. 45 A-5071-13T1 A. We note that Holdren's convictions for the murder of Montgomery and attempted murders of Logan and Stallworth meet five Yarbough factors: (1) the crimes were clearly independent a

2017The Yarbough factors are: (1) there can be no free crimes in a system for which the punishment shall fit the crime; (2) the reasons for imposing either a consecutive or concurrent sentence should be separately stated in the sentencing decision; (3) some reasons to be considered by the sentencing court should include facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, r

2017The Yarbough factors are: (1) there can be no free crimes in a system for which the punishment shall fit the crime; (2) the reasons for imposing either a consecutive or concurrent sentence should be separately stated in the sentencing decision; (3) some reasons to be considered by the sentencing court should include facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (a) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (b) the crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; (c) the crimes were committed at different times or separate places, r

2019The trial judge carefully considered the five factors identified in Yarbough to guide the decision whether to impose a consecutive term: (1) whether "the crimes and their objectives were predominately independent of each other"; (2) whether they "involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence"; (3) whether they "were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior"; (4) whether they "involved multiple victims"; and (5) whether "the convictions for which the sentences are to

2019The trial judge carefully considered the five factors identified in Yarbough to guide the decision whether to impose a consecutive term: (1) whether "the crimes and their objectives were predominately independent of each other"; (2) whether they "involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence"; (3) whether they "were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior"; (4) whether they "involved multiple victims"; and (5) whether "the convictions for which the sentences are to

2017In Miller, supra, 108 N.J. at 122, a case that did not involve multiple victims, the Court said that "[w]here the offenses are closely related, it would ordinarily be inappropriate to sentence a defendant to the maximum term for each offense and also require that those sentences be served consecutively, especially where the second offense did not pose an additional risk to the victim." In State v. Pennington, 154 N.J. 344, 361-62 (1998), referring to Yarbough factor five, the Court said in remanding for resentencing after imposition of two consecutive maximum sentences, the trial court was "re

2017In Miller, supra, 108 N.J. at 122, a case that did not involve multiple victims, the Court said that "[w]here the offenses are closely related, it would ordinarily be inappropriate to sentence a defendant to the maximum term for each offense and also require that those sentences be served consecutively, especially where the second offense did not pose an additional risk to the victim." In State v. Pennington, 154 N.J. 344, 361-62 (1998), referring to Yarbough factor five, the Court said in remanding for resentencing after imposition of two consecutive maximum sentences, the trial court was "re

2026See State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 308 (2008) (explaining that when a new rule is not at issue, the court will not do a retroactivity analysis but will apply the law as it has always been); State v. A.M., 252 N.J. 432 , 459 (2023) (explaining that the Court's purpose in Torres was to emphasize the importance of 'overall fairness' in guiding the Yarbough analysis).

2026See State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 308 (2008) (explaining that when a new rule is not at issue, the court will not do a retroactivity analysis but will apply the law as it has always been); State v. A.M., 252 N.J. 432 , 459 (2023) (explaining that the Court's purpose in Torres was to emphasize the importance of 'overall fairness' in guiding the Yarbough analysis).

2025See Acevedo, 205 N.J. at 47 .

2025See Acevedo, 205 N.J. at 47 .