STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LATONIA E. BELLAMY (11-03-0348, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0502-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
May 17, 2021
LATONIA E. BELLAMY,
APPELLATE DIVISION
a/k/a NA-NA, LATONIA
ELIZABETH BELLAMY,
LATONIA BELLAMY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted January 21, 2021 – Decided May 17, 2021
Before Judges Alvarez, Sumners, and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 11-03-
0348.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Alyssa Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ALVAREZ, P.J.A.D.
Defendant Latonia E. Bellamy appeals the imposition after a remand
hearing of a life sentence subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA),
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a), followed by consecutive terms of thirty years'
imprisonment subject to thirty years of parole ineligibility and ten years'
imprisonment subject to five years of parole ineligibility. She also appeals the
trial judge's denial of her pre-resentence application to obtain Division of
Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) records from her childhood, and the
limits he imposed on the resentence. We agree, reverse, and remand for a third
sentence proceeding before a different judge, and direct that her DCPP records
be made available to her.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of the horrific, cold-blooded murder
of Nia Haqq and Michael Muchioki. The murder occurred during the early
morning hours of April 4, 2010, as Haqq and Muchioki returned from their
engagement party.
Defendant, who was then nineteen, had spent years in the care and/or
custody of DCPP, and some years in the care and custody of a family member
who sexually abused her. When the murder occurred, she was a college
student, and had no prior juvenile history or adult criminal record.
Defendant was in the company of two others, her cousin Shiquan
Bellamy (Bellamy) and Darmellia Lawrence. Bellamy and Lawrence had
2 A-0502-19
perpetrated a double murder two months prior. Bellamy had been involved in
a third murder in late March.
Shortly before the murder, defendant expressed an interest to Bellamy
and Lawrence in shooting a gun. She was unaware of Bellamy and Lawrence's
involvement in prior murders, but knew Bellamy had weapons.
Haqq and Muchioki were killed during the ensuing carjacking and
robbery. They offered no resistance and were placed face down on the ground.
After her arrest, defendant told police that Bellamy killed Muchioki with a
shotgun, and she fired two bullets with a handgun towards Haqq at Bellamy's
direction. She acknowledged while testifying at trial that she had told Bellamy
before the shooting that she wanted to fire a gun. Defendant also said she was
not sure if when she fired, the bullets hit Haqq. Bellamy then took the gun
from her and shot Haqq.
Despite the fact that the convictions have been previously enumerated in
our unpublished affirmance, we repeat them here because of their relevance to
this decision. Defendant was convicted of: first-degree felony murder during
a carjacking (Muchioki), N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3) (count eighteen); first-degree
carjacking (Muchioki), N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2 (count nineteen); first-degree felony
murder during an armed robbery (Muchioki), N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3) (count
twenty); first-degree armed robbery (Muchioki), N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count
3 A-0502-19
twenty-one); second-degree possession of a weapon with an unlawful purpose
(to use against Muchioki), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (count twenty-three); first-
degree murder (Haqq), N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) (count twenty-four);
first-degree felony murder during a carjacking (Haqq) (count twenty-five);
first-degree carjacking (Haqq) (count twenty-six); first-degree felony murder
during an armed robbery (Haqq) (count twenty-seven); first-degree armed
robbery (Haqq) (count twenty-eight); second-degree possession of a handgun
for an unlawful purpose (Haqq) (count thirty); and second-degree unlawful
possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count thirty-two).
Despite the benefit that a special verdict form identifying the predicate
crime for the felony murders would have provided in this case, one was not
submitted to the jury. See State v. Hill, 182 N.J. 532, 549 (2005) ("Because of
the merger considerations that can and do arise as a result of a jury's
determination that more than one predicate felony has been established in a
felony murder prosecution, a 'compelling need,' . . . is present sufficient to
overcome the general principle that the use of special [verdict form] in
criminal cases in [New Jersey] is 'discouraged.'" (quoting State v. Diaz, 144
N.J. 628, 643-44 (2005))).
Before sentencing defendant the first time, the court merged counts
eighteen and nineteen, twenty and twenty-one, twenty-five and twenty-six, and
4 A-0502-19
twenty-seven and twenty-eight. As the judgment of conviction (JOC)
indicates, "[r]emaining for sentence are [c]ounts [eighteen], [twenty], [twenty-
three], [twenty-four], [twenty-five], [twenty-seven], [thirty], and [thirty-two]."
Thus, the offenses upon which the judge imposed sentence for the crimes
against Muchioki included two felony murders (carjacking and robbery), and
possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose. With regard to the crimes
against Haqq, the judge sentenced defendant on murder, two felony murders,
and possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose. Additionally, defendant
was sentenced for unlawful possession of a weapon.
After our remand, on September 19, 2019, the trial judge resentenced
defendant as follows: life subject to NERA for murder of Haqq (count twenty-
four) and two terms of thirty years of imprisonment with complete parole bars
for the two felony murders of Muchioki (counts eighteen and twenty), to be
served consecutive to count twenty-four but concurrent with each other. The
judge imposed one ten-year term of imprisonment, of which five were parole
ineligible, on one count of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose
(count twenty-three), to be served concurrently with counts eighteen and
twenty but consecutive to count twenty-four. The following were made
concurrent to count twenty-four: two NERA life terms on two felony murders
of Haqq (counts twenty-five and twenty-seven); one ten-year term, five of
5 A-0502-19
which were parole ineligible, on one count of possession of a weapon for
unlawful purpose (count thirty); and ten years must serve five for unlawful
possession of a handgun (count thirty-two). 1 Thus, defendant's new aggregate
sentence is a NERA life term, followed by an additional thirty-five years of
parole-ineligible time. At the resentence hearing, the judge found aggravating
factors one and nine, and factor seven in mitigation. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(1),
(9); 2C:44-1(b)(7).
Prior to the resentence hearing, defendant sought release of DCPP
records describing the circumstances surrounding the agency's intervention in
her life. She argued the records were necessary for a complete clinical
evaluation by the psychologist whose report she intended to produce at
sentencing, and that the records would support the finding of additional
mitigating factors. Defendant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal when
her application was denied. In the supplemental language to the order, we
referred to the reason for the remand being the absence of discussion regarding
mitigating factor eight. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal from the
application to our court.
1
The JOC states that count twenty-three includes a five-year parole-bar, but
the judge did not expressly include this minimum term at the sentencing
hearing. The parole bar was no doubt imposed, given the overall structure of
the sentence. Since we are ordering a resentence, no correction is necessary.
6 A-0502-19
The judge refused to turn over DCPP records because he opined that
defendant was her own best historian, and that the records would not be
relevant because he was limited on resentencing to reconsideration of
mitigating factor eight. He construed the supplemental language in the order
denying leave to appeal to mean he could only reconsider that factor.
At the resentence hearing, defense counsel raised numerous arguments
and made substantial submissions, including an appendix allegedly almost 300
pages in length. 2 Counsel argued mitigating factors other than eight, such as
defendant's youth, traumatic childhood, and the exercise of influence upon her
by Bellamy, who was her cousin. The judge did not include those arguments
in his sentencing analysis. This time, he did not find aggravating factor three,
which he had found earlier when he first sentenced defendant. Thus, he
reimposed the earlier sentence based on aggravating factors one and nine, and
mitigating factor seven.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points:
POINT I
WHERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED
AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY
CONSIDERED AGGRAVATING FACTOR (3) AND
DOUBLE-COUNTED AGGRAVATING FACTOR
2
No copy was included in the appeal appendix.
7 A-0502-19
(1), AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE DID
NOT CONSIDER MITIGATING FACTOR (8), THE
JUDGE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE REMAND
ORDER -- AS REQUIRING A STATEMENT OF
REASONS ONLY -- WAS PLAINLY INCORRECT.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGE ON REMAND
FAILED TO ENGAGE IN A DE NOVO REVIEW OF
THE SENTENCING FACTORS APPLICABLE TO
MS. BELLAMY AT THE TIME OF THE REMAND
HEARING, AND THUS A REMAND FOR
RESENTENCING IS AGAIN REQUIRED.
A. When An Appellate Court Remands For
Resentencing The Defendant Is Entitled To Be
Sentenced Anew And All Current Information
Relevant To An Appropriate Evaluation Of The
Sentencing Factors Should Be Considered.
B. The Remand Was Not Simply For A Statement Of
Reasons, Nor Did It Limit Resentencing To The Facts
And Circumstances Established At The Original
Sentencing Hearing.
C. The Supplemental Language Contained In The
Order Denying Ms. Bellamy Leave To Appeal The
Adverse Ruling Regarding DCPP Records Did Not,
And Could Not, Transform The Remand For
Resentencing Into A Remand For Statement Of
Reasons Only.
POINT II
THE REMAND FOR RESENTENCING MUST BE
REASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE
BECAUSE, AS MS. BELLAMY ARGUED BELOW,
THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE
INABILITY TO IMPARTIALLY ENGAGE IN A DE
NOVO REVIEW OF THE SENTENCING FACTORS
APPLICABLE TO MS. BELLAMY AT THE TIME
OF RESENTENCING.
8 A-0502-19
A. Reassignment Is Required Because The Judge
Made An Advance Determination, Based On An
Evidentially Unsupported View Of Jury's Verdict And
A Biased Interpretation Of The Evidence At Trial,
That He Will Not Consider Ms. Bellamy's Post-
Conviction Mitigation Evidence At Resentencing.
B. The Judge Cannot Be Expected To Engage In A De
Novo Review Of The Sentencing Factors Applicable
To Ms. Bellamy At The Time Of Her Resentencing
Because His Strong Opinions Of Ms. Bellamy, The
Role She Played In The Offenses, And The Sentence
She Deserves –- Formed At The Original Sentencing
Hearing, Seven Years Ago –- Are Too Difficult To
Change, Even If Evidence To The Contrary Is
Presented.
C. The Judge's Strong Feelings About This Case Have
Caused Him To Lose His Objectivity And Display
Bias Against The Defense.
POINT III
BECAUSE IT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD,
THE TRIAL COURT REACHED THE WRONG
CONCLUSION WHEN IT DENIED MS.
BELLAMY'S MOTION TO COMPEL RELEASE OF
HER DCPP RECORDS.
A. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.l0a Cannot Be Read To Prohibit
DCPP Records From Being Released To Individuals
Who Are The Subject Of The Report.
I.
When an appellate court orders a resentencing, a defendant is ordinarily
entitled to a full rehearing. State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 70 (2014). Even
"evidence of post-offense conduct, rehabilitative or otherwise, must be
9 A-0502-19
considered in assessing the applicability of, and [the] weight to be given to,
aggravating and mitigating factors." State v. Jaffe, 220 N.J. 114, 124 (2014).
The resentencing judge must "view defendant as he stands before the court on
that day unless the remand order specifies a different and more limited
resentencing proceeding such as correction of a plainly technical error or a
directive to the judge to view the particular sentencing issue from the vantage
point of the original sentence." State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 354 (2012).
Resentence hearings are intended to afford the parties and the court the
opportunity to reassess and reevaluate each and every sentencing consideration
before new penalties are imposed. When an exception to that general rule
applies, the appellate decision will say so.
In this case, our prior opinion stated the matter was returned to the trial
court, not for the correction of a technical error, such as a merger decision, but
for "resentencing consistent with this decision." State v. Bellamy, No. A-
3676-12 (App. Div. Nov. 8, 2017) (slip op. at 7). Although we specifically
discussed the lack of support in the record for aggravating factor three, and the
need to thoroughly consider mitigating factor eight, the language of the
opinion allowed defendant to be sentenced anew, in line with prior precedent.
The abbreviated supplemental language in the motion order denying
leave to appeal was not intended to circumscribe the scope of a full
10 A-0502-19
resentencing on the merits. It was a decision on an emergent leave to appeal
motion focused on access to DCPP records. It was not intended to limit the
thorough discussion of defendant's sentence in the direct appeal decision.
A remand for resentencing envisions a new sentence hearing, except
where expressly limited. When we comment on errors, such as the finding of a
factor lacking support in the record, that statement is binding. See Tomaino v.
Burman, 364 N.J. Super. 224, 234 (App. Div. 2003) ("Clearly the appellate
court's instructions to the trial court on remand are binding on that court
. . . ."). Nonetheless, that does not prevent the resentencing judge from finding
the same factor so long as at the remand hearing sufficient evidence is
presented to support it.
If a direct appeal opinion comments in a neutral, or even favorable
manner upon other factors, it amounts to dicta, almost always in response to
arguments counsel raise on appeal. Because we say, by way of examples, that
sufficient support exists for a finding, or that the finding of a factor was not
double-counting, or where we make similar observations, that does not
mandate, should the evidence at a resentence hearing differ, that the judge
reach the same conclusion. Comments of that nature may offer guidance, but
do not freeze-frame the judge's qualitative analysis, particularly where
different proofs are offered. Circumstances evolve and people change over
11 A-0502-19
time. A judge's hands are tied on a resentence only if we hold the finding of a
particular factor, given the record as it then existed, was error. The judge,
obviously, should not repeat the mistake. But he or she is free to view the
whole person standing before the court at that moment, within the context of
the crimes of which he or she has been convicted.
II.
Merger is a matter of legality. State v. Romero, 191 N.J. 59, 80 (2007).
Challenges to the legality of a sentence may be made at any time. R. 3:21-
10(b)(5); State v. Zuber, 227 N.J. 422, 437 (2017). Although it was natural
that the focus in this case was elsewhere, that important albeit technical issue
must now be addressed.
As to each victim, the jury returned guilty verdicts for two counts of
felony murder (carjacking, robbery), and one count of carjacking, armed
robbery, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. As to Haqq, the
jury returned a separate verdict for murder. The jury also convicted defendant
of possession of a weapon without a permit.
The judge merged the carjacking and robbery convictions into the
respective felony murder convictions for both victims. Since the jury found
defendant guilty of Haqq's murder as well, however, the court should have
merged the two felony murder convictions (carjacking and robbery) into the
12 A-0502-19
murder charge, unmerging the carjacking and robbery offenses as to Haqq.
See State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481, 561 (1994) ("[T]he overall principle guiding
merger analysis is that a defendant who has committed one offense 'cannot be
punished as if for two'"; thus, convictions for "offenses that merely offer an
alternative basis for punishing the same criminal conduct will merge")
(quoting State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 116 (1987)).
Possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (as to Haqq) should
have merged into Haqq's murder, the robbery, or the carjacking conviction.
Based on the record before us, it appears defendant possessed the gun solely
for the purpose of committing the murder, robbery, or carjacking, but that
decision should be made by the judge on remand based on the trial proofs. For
purposes of clarity, we repeat, the felony murders as to Haqq merge into the
murder of that victim. Assuming the trial record supports the conclusion
defendant's possession of the weapon was solely either to murder or to steal
from the victim, the offense merges either with murder or the theft offenses.
The felony murders as to Muchioki also merge, as to leave two
freestanding felony murders of one victim would punish defendant for one
offense as if she had committed two. Ibid. The carjacking and the robbery
offenses as to that victim are therefore unmerged. The possession of a weapon
for an unlawful purpose as to Muchioki merges either with the felony murders,
13 A-0502-19
the carjacking, or the robbery conviction, based on the trial record. We again
leave that to the discretion of the judge on remand, who will have the benefit
of familiarity with the record and the argument of counsel. Accordingly,
defendant shall be sentenced on: one murder (Haqq); one felony murder
(Muchioki); one carjacking or one robbery as to Muchioki, depending on the
trial judge's determination of which offense should after-the-fact comprise the
predicate crime for the felony murder conviction; one carjacking (Haqq); one
robbery (Haqq); and unlawful possession of a weapon.
III.
After the parties submitted their briefs in 2020, the Legislature enacted
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14)—a new mitigating factor—that embodied an
argument defendant has made since her first hearing: that her age at the time
of the killings warranted consideration at sentencing. See L. 2020, c. 110 (eff.
Oct. 19, 2020). This new mitigating factor applies when a defendant is less
than twenty-six years of age at the time of the crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14).
Because defendant was convicted and twice sentenced before the adoption of
the statute, the question we must address is whether that mitigating factor can
be added to the judge's sentencing calculus at this third proceeding. Based on
our reading of the savings statute and applicable law, we hold the new
14 A-0502-19
mitigating factor must be included with the rest of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 at
defendant's resentence.
The savings statute codifies the general rule that a new law applies
prospectively only, not affecting offenses and penalties incurred prior to its
enactment, unless the Legislature expresses a clear intent to the contrary.
N.J.S.A. 1:1-15; State v. J.V., 242 N.J. 432, 443 (2020), as revised (June 12,
2020).
The savings statute provides:
No offense committed, and no liability, penalty or
forfeiture, either civil or criminal, incurred, previous
to the time of the repeal or alteration of any act or part
of any act, by the enactment of the Revised Statutes or
by any act heretofore or hereafter enacted, shall be
discharged, released or affected by the repeal or
alteration of the statute under which such offense,
liability, penalty or forfeiture was incurred, unless it is
expressly declared in the act by which such repeal or
alteration is effectuated, that an offense, liability,
penalty or forfeiture already committed or incurred
shall be thereby discharged, released or affected; and
indictments, prosecutions and actions for such
offenses, liabilities, penalties or forfeitures already
committed or incurred shall be commenced or
continued and be proceeded with in all respects as if
the act or part of an act had not been repealed or
altered, except that when the Revised Statutes, or
other act by which such repeal or alteration is
effectuated, shall relate to mere matters of practice or
mode of procedure, the proceedings had thereafter on
the indictment or in the prosecution for such offenses,
liabilities, penalties or forfeitures shall be in such
respects, as far as is practicable, in accordance with
15 A-0502-19
the provisions of the Revised Statutes or such
subsequent act.
[N.J.S.A. 1:1-15.]
In State in Interest of C.F., C.F. was charged in 2012 in a juvenile
delinquency complaint for a murder committed in 1976, when he was fifteen
years old. 444 N.J. Super. 179, 181-82 (App. Div. 2016). The State argued
C.F. should be sentenced pursuant to the law in effect at the time of the
offense, not the more favorable law in force at the time of his 2013 sentencing.
Id. at 182. We held
a legislative change in the "penalty" for committing an
offense—even if the offense was committed prior to
the change—would not be hampered by the savings
statute because, in that instance, the new law would be
given prospective application; in that circumstance,
we would look to the part of the savings statute that
applies to "penalties," not "offenses," and observe that
the statute declares no penalty "incurred . . . shall be .
. . affected by the repeal or alteration of the statute
under which such ... penalty ... was incurred." In
reading the statute this way, as we believe we must,
the new sentencing law cannot be said to have been
applied retroactively here because the new
law, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-44, was enacted before C.F.
incurred a penalty.
To be sure, a large gulf in time passed between the
offense's commission and a penalty's incurrence; C.F.
"committed" his offense in 1976 but did not "incur" a
penalty until 2013. No matter how striking or unusual
that circumstance may seem, it does not call for a
different application of the savings statute than
warranted by its express language. Put into the
16 A-0502-19
present context, had the Legislature redefined what it
meant to "commit" felony murder after 1976, the
savings statute would bar application of the new law.
Our focus, however, is not on the elements of the
offense but on the penalty to be imposed. C.F. did not
incur a "penalty" until well after 1983, when the
current juvenile sentencing laws took effect; the
savings statute simply has no impact on the
application of those new laws to him in 2013 because,
in this sense, the new law is being applied
prospectively, not retroactively.
[Id. at 189-90 (alterations in original) (internal
citations omitted).]
Here, the situation differs insofar as defendant will be sentenced a third
time for reasons unrelated to the adoption of the statute. But the result is
unchanged. The judge will be viewing defendant "as [s]he stands before the
court on that day." Randolph, 210 N.J. at 354. He should apply the new law
because it was enacted before she incurred the penalty. C.F., 444 N.J. Super.
at 189. Thus it is prospective application of the new statute, not retrospective.
In State v. Parks, a defendant initially sentenced in January 2002 under
the Three Strikes Law was resentenced in 2004, after we said "the trial judge
had failed to make the required determination that defendant's prior federal
bank robbery conviction constituted a 'strike' within the meaning of the Three
Strikes law." 192 N.J. 483, 485 (2007). By 2004, the Legislature had amended
the applicable Three Strikes Law to clarify its applicability to defendants
17 A-0502-19
convicted of three crimes committed on three separate occasions, regardless of
the dates of prior convictions. Id. at 487.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held:
The remaining question is whether there is any reason
to apply the original version of the Three Strikes Law.
None has been demonstrated. To be sure, when
defendant was sentenced in January of 2002, the first
Three Strikes Law was in effect. However, when he
was sentenced anew on April 29, 2004, the prior
sentencing was nullified. At that time, the amended
law was in effect. Thus, the parties' briefs and
arguments on questions of retroactivity and the
concomitant effect of the Savings Clause (N.J.S.A.
1:1-15) were wide of the mark. Plainly, this case does
not involve a retroactivity analysis because no penalty
was incurred prior to the amendment. Indeed, when
defendant's resentencing took place, the new law had
been in effect for a year.
[Id. at 488.]
Because defendant will be resentenced, she has yet to incur a penalty
within the meaning of the savings statute. The new mitigating factor has been
in force for months, as it "[took] effect immediately." Therefore, defendant
must be allowed to argue its applicability at her resentencing.
A retroactivity analysis, relevant or not, reaches the same conclusion.
"The overriding goal of all statutory interpretation 'is to determine as best we
can the intent of the Legislature, and to give effect to that intent.'" State v.
S.B., 230 N.J. 62, 67 (2017) (quoting State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 604
18 A-0502-19
(2014)). "When the Legislature does not clearly express its intent to give a
statute prospective application, a court must determine whether to apply the
statute retroactively." State v. J.V., 242 N.J. 432, 443 (2020) (quoting Twiss
v. Dep't of Treasury, 124 N.J. 461, 467 (1991)).
"Generally, new criminal statutes are presumed to have solely
prospective application." Ibid. Here, the plain language of the Assembly Bill
provided that "[t]his act shall take effect immediately." L. 2020, c. 110 (eff.
Oct. 19, 2020). This "clearly express[es legislative] intent to give [the] statute
prospective application." J.V., 242 N.J. at 443. The plain wording, however,
offers no additional guidance, because in this case the question is less
straightforward—does the statute apply to a defendant who, for reasons
unrelated to the statute, is being resentenced.
For the sake of argument, even if we were to consider application of the
factor "retroactive" simply because it was not in effect when defendant was
sentenced the first time, it should be included. Among the recognized
exceptions to the presumption against retroactive application of a law is that
"the statute is ameliorative or curative . . . ." J.V., 242 N.J. at 444 (quoting
Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515, 522-23 (1981)). "Under [this] exception . . .
the term 'ameliorative' refers only to criminal laws that effect a reduction in a
criminal penalty." State in Interest of J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39, 54 (App. Div.
19 A-0502-19
2016). "The ameliorative amendment must be aimed at mitigating a
legislatively perceived undue severity in the existing criminal law." Id. at 55
(quoting Kendall v. Snedeker, 219 N.J. Super. 283, 286 n.1 (App. Div. 1987)).
The Legislature tacitly acknowledged such a purpose in the Assembly
Bill, noting
Current law provides [thirteen] mitigating factors that
the court may consider when sentencing a defendant.
The only mitigating factor related to the age of a
youthful defendant permits the court to consider
whether the defendant's conduct was substantially
influenced by another, more mature person. Under the
bill's provisions, the court would be permitted broadly
to consider as a mitigating factor whether a defendant
was under the age of [twenty-six] when an offense
was committed.
[Assembly Law & Pub. Safety Comm. Statement to
Assembly, A. 4373 (July 20, 2020).]
Unquestionably, the Legislature wanted to fill a void in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) by
making a convicted person's youth a standalone factor in the court's sentencing
calculus. 3 Ibid. This draws the new mitigating factor in line with other
3
"'[D]evelopments in psychology and brain science . . . show fundamental
differences between juvenile and adult minds.'" Zuber, 227 N.J. at 441
(quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 48, 68 (2010)). The United States Supreme
Court "identified . . . the 'parts of the brain involved in behavior control
continue to mature through late adolescence.'" Ibid. (quoting Graham, 560
U.S. at 68).
20 A-0502-19
statutes deemed to satisfy the ameliorative exception and justifies "retroactive"
applicability.
For instance, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted—with implicit
approval—the Appellate Division's determination that the revised juvenile
waiver statute was "an ameliorative statute 'because it was intended to
ameliorate the punitive sentencing previously meted out to adolescent
offenders after waiver . . . .'" J.V., 242 N.J. at 447 (quoting J.F., 446 N.J.
Super. at 55 (alteration in original)).
Yet in J.V., the juvenile was refused retroactive benefit from the revised
waiver statute because he had already been waived to adult court, convicted
and sentenced, all prior to the enactment of the new waiver law. Id. at 448.
The court noted that no evidence existed to indicate the Legislature intended
the revised waiver statute to "reach concluded cases which have already passed
through the proverbial pipeline." Ibid. (quotations and citations omitted). In
contrast, the defendant in J.F. did benefit from retroactive effect from the new
waiver law because he "had pending proceedings in the juvenile court both
before and after [the new law] became effective." Ibid.
The Legislature intended the new mitigating factor to take effect
immediately, not at some distant point in the future, as transpired with the
21 A-0502-19
waiver law in J.V. In the present case, defendant has yet to "pass[] through the
proverbial pipeline." Ibid.
"It is the reduction of a criminal penalty which constitutes the
amelioration . . . ." D.C. v. F.R., 286 N.J. Super. 589, 605 (App. Div. 1996).
The inclusion of an additional mitigating factor has the potential to effect a
"reduction of a criminal penalty[,]" thereby rendering N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)
ameliorative. Ibid. The lack of finality in defendant's case, coupled with the
ameliorative nature of the new mitigating factor and her age at the time of the
offenses, thus warrant "retroactive" effect of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14).
This is not intended to mean cases in the pipeline in which a youthful
defendant was sentenced before October 19, 2020, are automatically entitled to
a reconsideration based on the enactment of this statute alone. Rather, it
means where, for a reason unrelated to the adoption of the statute, a youthful
defendant is resentenced, he or she is entitled to argue the new statute applies.
IV.
Defendant seeks access to the DCPP records from her childhood, to
which she is clearly entitled. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6) permits disclosure upon
a court "finding that access to such records may be necessary for determination
of an issue before it, and such records may be disclosed by the court . . . in
whole or in part to the [L]aw [G]uardian, attorney, or other appropriate person
22 A-0502-19
upon a finding that such further disclosure is necessary for [the] determination
of an issue [in] court . . . ." Pursuant to statute, the judge releasing the records
conducts an in camera inspection to determine the redactions necessary to
preserve the anonymity of innocent third parties.
It is true, as the judge observed, that defendant may be able to act as the
historian of the abuse that led to the child welfare agency's involvement in her
life. That child's perspective, however, would only be cognizant of part of the
picture. In all likelihood, she would know little regarding the proceedings
surrounding her care and, given the distortions natural to the passage of years,
have an inaccurate picture of key events. The records are necessary in order
for the court to fully weigh the merits of her argument that her childhood bore
some connection to the commission of the crime.
Defendant is the subject of those records as well as the requestor. Where
a defendant has a right to discovery of DCPP records to defend against
criminal charges, she is entitled to them as a matter of due process. See State
v. Cusick, 219 N.J. Super. 452, 459 (App. Div. 1987) (affirming the
"competing demands" posed by "the defendant's right to discovery . . . and the
statutory prohibition against the release of particular information because of
the public policy expressed in the statutes to keep [those] items confidential").
23 A-0502-19
The purpose of the statute, after all, is to provide for the protection of
children. The person with the greatest interest in these records is the child, not
the agency. To enable defendant to access them to prepare for a sentence
which to date has resulted in multiple consecutive terms, the aggregate of
which far exceeds life imprisonment, seems equally a matter of due process.
Nor should it be necessary for defendant to turn to the Family Part. In
Cusick, the records were obtained in the Law Division to assist in the
preparation of a defense. It would run contrary to the spirit of the statute for
the very subject of DCPP's protective services to be enjoined from compelling
their disclosure in the court in which the State is proceeding against her.
Defendant needed those records to assist an expert in evaluating her mental
health status for the important purpose of the sentencing; in Cusick, it was a
parent who needed the records for the defense of criminal charges. If the
statute applies in that context, it should certainly apply here where the State is
proceeding against a defendant it once protected as a child.
Defendant's additional argument that, regardless of the expert, the
records should be made available for the judge to determine which are
necessary and should be released to her in redacted form, is also convincing.
A defendant who commits an offense at nineteen, an age barely out of
childhood, should be entitled to redacted records for her benefit to enable her
24 A-0502-19
to address this sentence, arguably one of the most important events in her
history.
V.
Defendant also contends that the trial judge must be recused because he
has demonstrated his inability to view her as she currently stands before the
court. With great reluctance, we must agree recusal is appropriate.
The circumstances of the killing were particularly brutal. The judge sat
through the trial and imposed sentence twice. Nonetheless, as we explained in
State v. Tindell:
A judge may not permit his or her sense of moral
outrage and indignation to overwhelm the legal
process. The need for dispassionate, evenhanded
conduct is most acute in the sentencing phase of a
criminal trial. For it is in this critical phase of the
criminal process that the judge's role changes, from an
arbitrator of legal disputes that arise in the course of
the trial, to the dispenser of society's justice. In this
role, the judge must act in a manner that reassures all
affected--defendant and his [or her] family, the
victims and their families, and society at large--that he
or she will be guided exclusively by the factors
established by law and not by the judge's personal
code of conduct.
[417 N.J. Super. 530, 571 (App. Div. 2011).]
In this case, the judge said that defendant's rehabilitative efforts since
conviction, and her troubled childhood, would not change his mind about her
character and the aggravating and mitigating factors. In so doing, he failed to
25 A-0502-19
acknowledge defendant's rehabilitative efforts. Case, 220 N.J. at 70;
Randolph, 210 N.J. at 354; see also State v. Sainz, 107 N.J. 283, 288 (1987)
(explaining that the purpose of weighing the sentencing factors is "to insure
that sentencing is individualized without being arbitrary"). Furthermore, the
judge failed to acquire potentially significant background information, and to
allow defendant to fully brief a sentencing expert.
On remand, the new judge must consider the person defendant has
become as she stands before the court. If presented with the argument, a new
judge must at least have the information necessary to assess whether
defendant's childhood provides context for her criminal conduct.
The trial judge justified consecutive sentences because of the severity of
defendant's crimes and the fact there were two victims. The new judge should
at least include in the analysis the real time consequence here, including the
effect of mandatory parole bars. See State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 467-68
(2016) (explaining the process of weighing the factors); State v. Louis, 117
N.J. 250, 255 (1989) (ruling that while the defendant's crimes were horrific,
the multiple consecutive terms appeared to be based on double-counting and
resulted in a manifestly excessive aggregate term); State v. Marinez, 370 N.J.
Super. 49, 58-59 (App. Div. 2004) (stressing the importance of the real-time
26 A-0502-19
consequence of a sentence, particularly one subject to a lengthy parole
disqualifier and consecutive terms).
The sentence is hereby vacated. DCPP records shall be reviewed by the
judge, redacted, and made available to defendant before any new sentence
date. The resentence hearing shall be conducted by a different judge.
Reversed.
27 A-0502-19