aggravating and mitigating factors in New Jersey

2026Thus, we 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.'" State v. Rivera, 249 N.J. 285 , 297-98 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).

2026Therefore, we affirm a defendant's sentence unless "(1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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.'" State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).

2026Therefore, we affirm a defendant's sentence unless "(1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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.'" State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).

2026Our Supreme Court has stated: The appellate court must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." A-2746-23 43 [State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] "At sentencing, the 'court should identify the re

2025Once the trial court has balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b), it "may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (instructing that appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the sentencing court, provided that the "aggravating and mitigating factors are identified [and] supported by competent, credible evidence in the record").

2025Once the trial court has balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b), it "may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (instructing that appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the sentencing court, provided the "aggravating and mitigating factors are identified [and] supported by competent, credible evidence in the record").

2025Once the trial court has balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b), it "may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (instructing that appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the sentencing court, provided that the "aggravating and mitigating factors are identified [and] supported by competent, credible evidence in the record").

2025Once the trial court has balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b), it "may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (instructing that appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the sentencing court, provided the "aggravating and mitigating factors are identified [and] supported by competent, credible evidence in the record").

2026In determining a sentence for imprisonment, the sentencing judge must consider the aggravating factors delineated in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(1)-(15) and the mitigating factors in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(1)-(14). "[A] trial court should identify the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, determine which factors are supported by a preponderance of evidence, balance the relevant factors, and explain how it arrives at the appropriate sentence." State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210, 215 (1989).

2026In determining a sentence for imprisonment, the sentencing judge must consider the aggravating factors delineated in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(1)-(15) and the mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(1)-(14). "[A] trial court should identify the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, determine which factors are supported by a preponderance of evidence, balance the relevant A-1546-23 37 factors, and explain how it arrives at the appropriate sentence." State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210, 215 (1989). "[A]n appellate court should not second- guess a trial court's finding of sufficient fac

2020Assuming the trial [judge] follows the sentencing guidelines, the one exception to that obligation occurs when a sentence shocks the judicial conscience. [State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 180 (2009) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 , 215- 16 (1989)).] We only disturb a sentence where the judge did not follow the sentencing guidelines, the evidence did not support the aggravating and mitigating factors, or the sentence is clearly unreasonable.

2020Because defendant's sentence does not "shock[] the judicial conscience," Cassady, 198 N.J. at 180 , and because the judge appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge did not abuse his discretion.

2025In reviewing a trial court's sentencing determinations, this court's review is limited to considering: (1) whether guidelines for sentencing established by the Legislature or by the courts were violated; (2) whether the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were based on competent credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether the sentence was nevertheless "clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359 , 371 (2019) (quoting State v. McGuire, 419 N.J.

2025Our review of a sentence is thus limited to consideration of the following: A-1626-23 12 (1) whether guidelines for sentencing established by the Legislature or by the courts were violated; (2) whether the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were based on competent credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether the sentence was nevertheless "clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359 , 371 (2019) (quoting State v. McGuire, 419 N.J.

2026A "reasonable" approach for sentencing judges is to use "the middle of the sentencing range as a logical starting point for the balancing process." Natale, 184 N.J. at 488 ; see also State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 73 (2014). "[I]f the aggravating and mitigating factors are in equipoise, the midpoint will be an appropriate sentence." Natale, 184 N.J. at 488 . "[R]eason suggests that when the mitigating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the lower end of the range, and when the aggravating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the higher end of the range." A-2895-22 102

2026A "reasonable" approach for sentencing judges is to use "the middle of the sentencing range as a logical starting point for the balancing process." Natale, 184 N.J. at 488 ; see also State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 73 (2014). "[I]f the aggravating and mitigating factors are in equipoise, the midpoint will be an appropriate sentence." Natale, 184 N.J. at 488 . "[R]eason suggests that when the mitigating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the lower end of the range, and when the aggravating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the higher end of the range." A-2895-22 102

2025Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 644 (1985), our Supreme Court set forth the following criteria as "general sentencin

2025Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 644 (1985), our Supreme Court set forth the following criteria as "general sentencin

2025"To provide an A-0625-23 23 intelligible record for review, the trial court should identify the aggravating and mitigating factors, describe the balance of those factors, and explain how it determined defendant's sentence." Kruse, 105 N.J. at 360 .

2022Although no inflexible rule applies, reason suggests that when the mitigating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the lower end of the range, and when the aggravating factors preponderate, sentences will tend toward the higher end of the range. [Ibid.] In State v. Kruse, the Court explained that, "[t]o provide an intelligible record for review, the trial court should identify the aggravating and mitigating factors, describe the balance of those factors, and explain how it determined defendant's sentence." 105 N.J. 354, 360 (1987)).

2024Ordinarily, we defer to the sentencing court's determination, State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014), and do not substitute our assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors for that of the court, State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109, 127 (2011); see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014).

2022A-5725-17 27 Although it is axiomatic that our review of a trial judge's sentencing determination is deferential, State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014), and "review of the length of a sentence" limited, State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109, 127 (2011), we nevertheless are charged with ensuring the trial court's findings and balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors are supported by adequate evidence in the record, and that the sentence imposed is neither inconsistent with the sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice nor shocking to the judicial conscience.

2022Next, defendant contends the trial court "violated its obligations to engage in a qualitative analysis of the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and to explain the reasons behind [defendant's] sentence." "Appellate review of sentencing is deferential, and appellate courts" should not "substitute their judgment for those of our sentencing courts." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (citing State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013)).

2022However, defendant concedes the judge mentioned defendant's mental health issues but found they "didn't rise to the level of being a statutory defense to the crimes." 51 A-3931-18 We review sentencing determinations under a deferential standard, State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 337 (2015) (quoting State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013)), and are bound to uphold the trial judge's sentence unless "(1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found . . . were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) 'the application of the gu

2024Even "[s]entences imposed upon . . . defendants [who enter negotiated guilty pleas] must still be within the sentencing guidelines, and the aggravating and mitigating factors found must still have support in the record." State v. Sainz, 107 N.J. 283, 292 (1987); accord State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 64 (2014) ("The finding of any factor must be supported by competent, credible evidence in the record.").

2019Our Supreme Court stated findings regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors ensure the "sentence imposed is tailored to the indivi dual offender and to the particular crime he or she committed." Sainz, 107 N.J. at 3 Although not determinative, we note the vehicle did not have a trunk per se, but a contiguous rear cargo area commonly found in SUVs.

2025We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the extended sentencing term nor did it err in its weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors since its decision was A-3265-22 20 "supported by competent, credible evidence in the record." See Case, 220 N.J. at 65 ; see also Miller, 237 N.J. at 28 .

2022The appellate court must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 , 364–65 (1984)).] "The general deference to sentencing decisions includes application of the factors set fort

2025However, the court's explanation of the aggravating and mitigating factors need not "be a discourse." State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80, 97 (1987), overruled in part, State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006).

2024However, the court's explanation of the aggravating and mitigating factors need not "be a discourse." State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80, 97 (1987), overruled in part, State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006).

2021See Clarke, 203 N.J. at 177 ("Because the decision whether to admit the applicant into Drug Court is essentially a sentencing one, the 'trial judge is required to consider all of the aggravating and mitigating factors and to find those supported by the evidence.'" (quoting State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 505 (2005))); see also Natale, 184 N.J. at 488 (2005) ("As always, every judge A-2256-19 62 must 'state on the record' how he or she arrived at a particular sentence." (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(e))).

2020We will affirm a sentence unless: (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] "In exercising its authority to impose [a] sentence, the trial court must identify and weigh all of the relevant aggravating factors that bear up

2025Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] A-2209-21 43 case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 644 (1985), our Supreme Court set forth the following criteria as "gene

2021We "may disturb a sentence imposed by the trial court in only three situations: (1) the trial court failed to follow the sentencing guidelines, (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the trial court are not supported by the record, or (3) application of the guidelines renders a specific sentence clearly unreasonable.'' State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 430 (2001) (citing State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 335 , 365- 66 (1984)). 10 The charges within each group were to run concurrent to one another, but each grouping was ordered to run consecutive to counts one through four.

2026State v. Johnson, 118 N.J. 10, 15 (1990); State v. Jabbour, 118 N.J. 1, 6 (1990).

2024Accordingly, a sentence must be affirmed unless: (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the A-0993-22 24 sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] Stated another way, a reviewing court may modify a defendant's sentence only when convinced that the sentencing judge was "'

2025However, the court's explanation of the aggravating and mitigating factors need not "be a discourse." State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80, 97 (1987), overruled in part, State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006).

2024However, the court's explanation of the aggravating and mitigating factors need not "be a discourse." State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80, 97 (1987), overruled in part, State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006).

2024Accordingly, a sentence must be affirmed unless: (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the A-0993-22 24 sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] Stated another way, a reviewing court may modify a defendant's sentence only when convinced that the sentencing judge was "'

2003Within these limitations, an appellate court can "(a) review sentences to determine if the legislative policies, here the sentencing guidelines, were violated; (b) review the aggravating and mitigating factors found below to determine whether those factors were based upon competent credible evidence in the record; and (c) determine whether, even though the court sentenced in accordance with the guidelines, nevertheless the application of the guidelines to the facts of this case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [ Ibid. (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N

2021See State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012) ("Proper sentencing thus requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced."); State v. Towey, 114 N.J. 69, 84 (1989) (criticizing "abbreviated discussion of the aggravating and mitigating factors [as] not reflect[ing] the qualitative weighing process contemplated by the Code").

2017State v. Towey, 114 N.J. 69, 82 (1989); see also Nance, supra, 228 N.J. at 390-91 ("Although 8 At the hearing, the parties relied principally upon their written submissions, which were not included in the record. 18 A-3887-15T4 the mandatory minimums are prescribed by the Graves Act, the sentencing court weighs the aggravating and mitigating factors, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b), and exercises discretion over other aspects of the sentence.").

2025Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] "While the sentence imposed must be a lawful one, the court's decision to impose a sentence in accordance with the plea

2022Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] A-2238-19 35 Furthermore, "[w]hile the sentence imposed must be a lawful one, the [trial] court's decision to impose a s

2025Therefore, [t]he appellate court must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] A sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement is presumed to be reasonable because a defendant voluntarily "[wai

2024Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] "A sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement is presumed to be reasonable because a defendant voluntarily '[waived]

2025At sentencing, the "court should identify the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, determine which factors are supported by a preponderance of evidence, balance the relevant factors, and explain how it arrives at the appropriate sentence." State v. M.A., 402 N.J.

2024We review a court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion, State v. Konecny, 250 N.J. 321 , 334 (2022), and will reverse a sentence only if A-2056-20 79 (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (citing State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 3

2025Thus, we will affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] A-2209-21 43 case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 644 (1985), our Supreme Court set forth the following criteria as "gene

2018We also observed that the aggravating and mitigating factors "are the traditional factors that courts always have considered in determining an appropriate sentence" and "were neither intended by the Legislature to constitute elements of a crime nor were they transformed into constitutional elements when the judge used them to justify imposing a parole disqualifier." Id. at 511-12, 878 A.2d 746 (citing Natale , 184 N.J. at 486 , 878 A.2d 724 ).

2023When that occurs, the sentencing court "must weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors" enumerated in A-2200-21 9 N.J.S.A. [2C:44-1(a) and (b)] "to determine whether a probationary or custodial sentence is appropriate." State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169, 173 (1989). [Meyer, 192 N.J. at 433 n.5.] "A defendant is not subject to the presumption of imprisonment because he or she was previously convicted of a first or second-degree crime." Harris, 466 N.J.

2022Under the statute, "the court should weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether to incarcerate the defendant or to place him or her on probation." State v. Baylass, 114 N.J. 169, 177 (1989).

2019The appellate court must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 , 364–65 (1984)).] As to aggravating factor one, "the sentencing court reviews the severity of the defendant's

2014The trial court’s explanation of its reasoning “is important for meaningful appellate review of any criminal sentence challenged for excessiveness,” because the appellate court “is expected to assess the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether they ‘were based upon competent credible evidence in the record.’ ” Id. at 608 , 985 A.2d 1251 (quoting Roth, supra, 95 N.J. at 364, 471 A.2d 370 ).

2026Our Supreme Court has stated: The appellate court must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and 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." [State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).] Our Supreme Court in State v. Rivera held that "[o]n resentenc

2025When a remand order is "not only for the reconsideration and justification of the consecutive nature of the sentences, but also for the same reconsideration and justification for the imposition of maximum terms, [it] necessarily requires a new analysis of the aggravating and mitigating factors." Randolph, 210 N.J. at 354 .

2025State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014); see also State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014).

2022Bolvito, 217 N.J. at 228 .