Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2024–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wessellsgreen2 sentences2025Turning to the substantive merits of defendant's constitutional challenge to his extended-term sentence, as we have noted, the Attorney General acknowledges the Erlinger rule applies retroactively to persistent-offender cases, like this one, that are still in the direct appeal "pipeline." See State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395, 412 (2012) (noting that new rules "for the conduct of criminal prosecutions" are to "be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the p 2025Turning to the substantive merits of defendant's constitutional challenge to his extended-term sentence, as we have noted, the Attorney General acknowledges the Erlinger rule applies retroactively to persistent-offender cases, like this one, that are still in the direct appeal "pipeline." See State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395, 412 (2012) (noting that new rules "for the conduct of criminal prosecutions" are to "be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the p | 8 | 8 |
Alleyne v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026We pointed out that the Erlinger majority emphasized that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), recognizes a "narrow exception" that permits "judges to find only 'the fact of a prior conviction.'" Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 836 -38 (quoting Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 111 n.1 (2013)). 2026We pointed out that the Erlinger majority emphasized that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), recognizes a "narrow exception" that permits "judges to find only 'the fact of a prior conviction.'" Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 836 -38 (quoting Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 111 n.1 (2013)). | 7 | 8 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). 2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). | 7 | 7 |
Griffith v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2025Turning to the substantive merits of defendant's constitutional challenge to his extended-term sentence, as we have noted, the Attorney General acknowledges the Erlinger rule applies retroactively to persistent-offender cases, like this one, that are still in the direct appeal "pipeline." See State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395, 412 (2012) (noting that new rules "for the conduct of criminal prosecutions" are to "be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the p 2025Turning to the substantive merits of defendant's constitutional challenge to his extended-term sentence, as we have noted, the Attorney General acknowledges the Erlinger rule applies retroactively to persistent-offender cases, like this one, that are still in the direct appeal "pipeline." See State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395, 412 (2012) (noting that new rules "for the conduct of criminal prosecutions" are to "be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the p | 7 | 7 |
Rose v. Clarkred2 sentences2025The Court added, "[i]n a free society respectful of the individual, a criminal defendant enjoys the right to hold the government to th e burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of his peers 'regardless of how overwhelmin[g]' the evidence may seem to a judge." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986)). 2025The Court added, "[i]n a free society respectful of the individual, a criminal defendant enjoys the right to hold the government to th e burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of his peers 'regardless of how overwhelmin[g]' the evidence may seem to a judge." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986)). | 7 | 7 |
State v. James Grate State v. Fuquan Cromwell (072750)green2 sentences2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). 2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2025During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must A-0532-22 38 also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 18 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. 2025During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must A-0532-22 38 also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 18 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Natalegreen2 sentences2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). 2025See also State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne,9 570 U.S. at 99 ), and State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)). | 7 | 7 |
Erlinger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026A-2350-23 10 In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh expressly addressed whether the Erlinger rule would apply to collateral reviews. 602 U.S. at 859 n.3 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). 2026A-2350-23 10 In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh expressly addressed whether the Erlinger rule would apply to collateral reviews. 602 U.S. at 859 n.3 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). | 5 | 9 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2024During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 23 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. Super. 298, 304-05 (App. Div. 1989) ("Generally, facts which will aggravate the crime of which a defendant is accused and enhance the punishment to which he will be subject are said to be an 'element' of the offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h), and must therefore be charged in the indictment.") (citing State v. Ingram, 98 N.J. 489 (1985)); see also State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 5 2024During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 23 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. Super. 298, 304-05 (App. Div. 1989) ("Generally, facts which will aggravate the crime of which a defendant is accused and enhance the punishment to which he will be subject are said to be an 'element' of the offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h), and must therefore be charged in the indictment.") (citing State v. Ingram, 98 N.J. 489 (1985)); see also State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 5 | 5 | 5 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025Because we deem it appropriate to remand for the trial judge to provide "[a]n explicit statement, explaining the overall fairness" of defendant's aggregate sentence pursuant to Torres, 246 N.J. at 268, we also instruct the judge on remand to address the Erlinger violation in accordance with Carlton. 2025Because we deem it appropriate to remand for the trial judge to provide "[a]n explicit statement, explaining the overall fairness" of defendant's aggregate sentence pursuant to Torres, 246 N.J. at 268, we also instruct the judge on remand to address the Erlinger violation in accordance with Carlton. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dockgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1996) (enumerating the alternatives available which are purely prospective, prospective, pipeline retroactive, and fully retroactive); State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 256 (2011) (explaining the four options in any case to determine the retroactive effect of a new rule of criminal procedure). 2024See State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1996) (enumerating the alternatives available which are purely prospective, prospective, pipeline retroactive, and fully retroactive); State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 256 (2011) (explaining the four options in any case to determine the retroactive effect of a new rule of criminal procedure). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Knightgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1996) (enumerating the alternatives available which are purely prospective, prospective, pipeline retroactive, and fully retroactive); State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 256 (2011) (explaining the four options in any case to determine the retroactive effect of a new rule of criminal procedure). 2024See State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1996) (enumerating the alternatives available which are purely prospective, prospective, pipeline retroactive, and fully retroactive); State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 256 (2011) (explaining the four options in any case to determine the retroactive effect of a new rule of criminal procedure). | 2 | 2 |
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2026He stated: "For any case that is already final, the Teague rule will presumably bar the defendant from raising today's new rule in collateral proceedings." Ibid. (citing Edwards, 593 U.S. at 258 ; Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 (plurality opinion)). 2026He stated: "For any case that is already final, the Teague rule will presumably bar the defendant from raising today's new rule in collateral proceedings." Ibid. (citing Edwards, 593 U.S. at 258 ; Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 (plurality opinion)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gerald Lynn Campbellgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2026As earlier noted, New Jersey’s persistent offender statute, as presently written, is inconsistent with the principles announced in Erlinger. 4 We therefore call upon the Legislature to examine the statute carefully at the earliest possible opportunity. 4 This Court’s holding in State v. Pierce that a judge’s determination of persistent offender status under the “prior conviction” exception is constitutionally permissible conflicts with Erlinger. 188 N.J. 155, 171-73 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Davion Riversgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rufus Bowlinggreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rico Browngreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cameron Johnsongreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Valenciagreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val 2026See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Oct. 6, 2025); United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (Nov. 10, 2025) (applying harmless error review to an Erlinger error relying on the United States Supreme Court’s “observation that an Erlinger error is merely a type of Apprendi error”; “Recuenco established that Apprendi errors of the type found in Erlinger are subject to harmless-error review”; and “[n]othing in Erlinger purported to change or undermine that holding”); United States v. Val | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cotton
green
2 sentences2025In Cotton, the defendant was charged with "conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a 'detectable amount ' of cocaine and cocaine base." 535 U.S. at 627-28 . 2025In Cotton, the defendant was charged with "conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a 'detectable amount ' of cocaine and cocaine base." 535 U.S. at 627-28 . | 7 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Ingram
green
2 sentences2024During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 23 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. Super. 298, 304-05 (App. Div. 1989) ("Generally, facts which will aggravate the crime of which a defendant is accused and enhance the punishment to which he will be subject are said to be an 'element' of the offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h), and must therefore be charged in the indictment.") (citing State v. Ingram, 98 N.J. 489 (1985)); see also State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 5 2024During oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that going forward, the facts that a petit jury must find under the Erlinger rule must also be presented to and found by a grand jury. 23 See State v. Rodriguez, 234 N.J. Super. 298, 304-05 (App. Div. 1989) ("Generally, facts which will aggravate the crime of which a defendant is accused and enhance the punishment to which he will be subject are said to be an 'element' of the offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h), and must therefore be charged in the indictment.") (citing State v. Ingram, 98 N.J. 489 (1985)); see also State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 5 | 5 | 2024–2025 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2026We pointed out that the Erlinger majority emphasized that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), recognizes a "narrow exception" that permits "judges to find only 'the fact of a prior conviction.'" Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 836 -38 (quoting Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 111 n.1 (2013)). 2026We pointed out that the Erlinger majority emphasized that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), recognizes a "narrow exception" that permits "judges to find only 'the fact of a prior conviction.'" Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 836 -38 (quoting Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 111 n.1 (2013)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Jamel Carlton
green
2 sentences2026Super. 311 , 356 (App. Div. 2024), we concluded that the Erlinger framework requires that only "the jury decides . . . if [the] defendant is eligible for a discretionary extended term as a persistent offender ." Our Supreme Court granted certification, 260 N.J. 478 (2025), but has not ruled as of the date of this decision. 2026Super. 311 , 356 (App. Div. 2024), we concluded that the Erlinger framework requires that only "the jury decides . . . if [the] defendant is eligible for a discretionary extended term as a persistent offender ." Our Supreme Court granted certification, 260 N.J. 478 (2025), but has not ruled as of the date of this decision. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Edwards v. Vannoy
green
2 sentences2026He stated: "For any case that is already final, the Teague rule will presumably bar the defendant from raising today's new rule in collateral proceedings." Ibid. (citing Edwards, 593 U.S. at 258 ; Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 (plurality opinion)). 2026He stated: "For any case that is already final, the Teague rule will presumably bar the defendant from raising today's new rule in collateral proceedings." Ibid. (citing Edwards, 593 U.S. at 258 ; Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 (plurality opinion)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.