STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. REHAN ZUBERI (13-08-0140 AND 15-05-0453, BERGEN AND MORRIS COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-0724-17T1
A-4002-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
REHAN ZUBERI, a/k/a RAY Z
and RAY ZUBERI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Argued September 12, 2019 – Decided November 8, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez, Nugent and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 15-05-0453
and Bergen County, Indictment No. 13-08-0140.
Adam W. Toraya argued the cause for appellant.
Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Sarah D. Brigham, of counsel and on
the briefs).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Rehan Zuberi appeals two judgments of conviction (JOC), one
entered on September 6, 2017, in Morris County and the other on January 26,
2018, in Bergen County. Defendant entered guilty pleas and was sentenced
accordingly. We consolidate the matters for decision and affirm.
Defendant's prior court history consists of a 1995 arrest for theft of
services, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8(a), criminal attempt, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, and a charge
described in the presentence report as "medical assistance benefits, N.J.S.A.
30:4D-17." In 1997, defendant was convicted of second-degree theft by
deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4, and second-degree money laundering, N.J.S.A.
2C:21-25. Those convictions related to Medicaid fraud, leading to defendant's
lifetime ban from owning or operating medical facilities.
Defendant's wrongdoing in Morris County arises partially from that ban.
He concealed his ownership and management control of various medical
imaging centers behind others, including his wife, family members, and friends.
Defendant's criminal enterprise, and multiple medical imaging centers earned
millions of dollars in illegal profits. Defendant also engaged in medical
kickbacks, bribing dozens of doctors in exchange for patient referrals to his
imaging centers. In Bergen County, defendant was paid on a false insurance
claim for magnetic resonance imaging equipment.
A-0724-17T1
2
Defendant, along with twenty-two others, was originally charged in
Morris County with multiple offenses: 1 racketeering, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(a)
(count one); first-degree financial facilitation, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(c) (count
two); commercial bribery, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-10(c) (count three); deceptive
business practices by making a false or misleading written statement, N.J.S.A.
2C:21-7(h) (count four); violating a state medical assistance program, N.J.S.A.
30:4D-17 (count five); misconduct by a corporate official for operating a
corporation to further and promote a criminal objective, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-9(c)
(count six); failure to file a state tax return with intent to defraud the State,
N.J.S.A. 54:52-8 (count seven); and failure to pay income taxes, N.J.S.A. 54:52-
9 (count eight).
In Bergen County, defendant was indicted for second-degree conspiracy
to commit forgery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:21-1 (count one); second-degree
insurance fraud, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 and 2C:21-4.6(b) (counts two and six); second-
degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 and 2C:20-4 (counts three and
seven); and fourth-degree forgery, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 and 2C:21-1(a)(2) (counts
four, five, eight, and nine).
1
The degree of offenses is not specified in the record but is not relevant to our
decision. They provide context for what followed.
A-0724-17T1
3
On May 4, 2015, in Morris County, the State and defendant agreed
defendant would plead guilty by way of accusation to first-degree financial
facilitation, and second-degree conspiracy to commit financial bribery. The
recommended sentence was no more than ten years in prison, with four years of
parole ineligibility on the first-degree offense.
The agreement further provided that for every five individuals prosecuted
based on defendant's cooperation, his term of imprisonment would be reduced
by six months, and his parole ineligibility term by four months, to a maximum
possible reduction to eight years with thirty-two months of parole ineligibility.
For the second-degree conspiracy, a concurrent ten-year term would be imposed,
subject to the same conditions.
Thus the aggregate term, if defendant did not cooperate, would be ten
years subject to four years of parole ineligibility. The minimum reduced
sentence would be eight years with thirty-two months of parole ineligibility.
During the plea colloquy, defendant acknowledged his knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to trial. The colloquy included the
following:
Q Did you commit these offenses to which
you are pleading guilty?
A Yes, I did.
A-0724-17T1
4
We reproduce the direct examination of defense counsel, as interrupted
where indicated by the judge and the prosecutor:
Q [Defendant], between approximately 2006
and 2015 did you own a management company?
A 2007 and '14, yes.
Q And what was the name of that
management company?
A Diagnostic Imaging Affiliates.
Q And did that company manage and operate
medical imaging centers?
A Yes, it did.
Q And what were the name of some of those
medical imaging centers that it managed and operated?
A American Imaging and Medical and Molecular
Imaging.
Q Okay. Between approximately 2008 and
2014 did you engage in financial transactions in
connection with Diagnostic Imaging Affiliates?
A Yes, I did.
Q And were these transactions involving
amounts of money which you believed to be derived
from criminal activity?
A Yes.
A-0724-17T1
5
Q And was the total amount of money
involved in those financial transactions over $500,000?
A Yes, it was.
Q And were you attempting to conceal or
disguise the source of those funds in the course of those
transactions?
A Yes.
Q And you believed that that money was
obtained from criminal activity. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And was the criminal activity healthcare
claims fraud?
A Yes.
Q The healthcare claims fraud was based on
the altering of the locations where MRI services were
provided. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And when you alter the location of an MRI,
you're changing the actual reimbursement rate. Is that
correct?
A That's correct.
Q And when you change the reimbursement
rate, you're actually receiving more money than you
would normally be entitled to. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
A-0724-17T1
6
Q Specifically with respect to changing the
locations, where were the actual services provided?
A The services were provided in Hackensack and
billed out of Englewood, New Jersey.
Q And as a result you obtained more money?
A That's correct.
Q And you engaged in financial transactions
with that money.
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think that
satisfies Count 1, Your Honor.
[THE STATE]: As to the dollar threshold I
don't know that it does.
THE COURT: The amount of the
transactions.
[BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
Q The amount of the transactions were in
excess[] of $500,000. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
[THE STATE]: The State's satisfied, Your
Honor.
A-0724-17T1
7
[BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
Q Now, [defendant], while operating and
managing these centers, did you also conspire with
other individuals in the making of payments to
physicians?
A Yes.
Q And these other individuals with which you
conspired, were they Humara Paracha?
A Yes.
Q And also Faisal Paracha?
A Yes.
Q And also Jose Lopez?
A Yes.
Q And also Felix Clarin?
A (No verbal response given)
Q No.
A No.
Q Okay. With respect to the . . . conspiracy,
was it the object of that conspiracy that one or more of
you would pay doctors?
A Yes.
Q And what was the purpose of paying the
doctors?
A-0724-17T1
8
A To receive referrals back to the centers.
Q And how much did you pay doctors?
A Anywhere between $50 and $150 per --
Q And was that per scan?
A -- per study. Per study, yes.
Q And as a result of paying these physicians,
did you receive a benefit through insurance billing?
A Yes.
Q And was that benefit, the monetary value
in excess of $75,000?
A Yes, it was.
Q Did you personally make money payments
to doctors, as well?
A Yes, I did.
Q And was of [sic] those doctors Dr. Simon
Santos?
A Yes.
Q And was that during the period of
approximately May 28, 2010 through June 16, 2014?
A Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I believe that's
adequate, Your Honor.
A-0724-17T1
9
THE COURT: State.
[THE STATE]: Was the -- not whether the
compensation but was the sum of the kickbacks or
payments to the doctors greater than 75,000?
THE DEFENDANT: I'm sorry?
[BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
Q Was the total amount of money that you, as
part of the conspiracy, paid the doctors in excess of
$75,000?
A Yes. Yes, it was in excess. Yes.
Additionally, the judge and defendant engaged in the following exchange:
Q Do you also understand that the Court
could, in its discretion, impose a minimum time in
confinement to be served before you become eligible
for parole, which could be as long as one-half of the
total custodial sentence imposed?
A Yes.
Q And do you also understand that you're
pleading guilty to a charge that requires a mandatory
period of parole ineligibility or a mandatory extended
term? That minimum period of parole ineligibility is
one year and eight months and the maximum period of
parole ineligibility is four years and this period cannot
be reduced by good time, work time, or minimum
custody credits. Do you understand that?
A Yes.
A-0724-17T1
10
When defendant was sentenced, over two years later on September 6,
2017, he had testified in two trials, and provided information that enabled the
State to prosecute eighteen others. He had also been extensively interviewed by
investigators, and made inculpatory statements under oath regarding his own
involvement in the medical insurance frauds. Defendant was thus sentenced to
the post-cooperation minimum term — eight years, with thirty-two months of
parole ineligibility on the first-degree offense, concurrent to six years on the
second-degree crime. The JOC required defendant, along with two co-
defendants, to pay $1,000,000 in restitution to the Treasurer of the State of New
Jersey.
As per the May 11, 2015 Bergen County plea form, defendant would plead
to the first count of the indictment, which the judge sua sponte amended from
second-degree to third-degree conspiracy to commit theft by deception. For that
offense, defendant would serve five years concurrent to the Morris County
sentence.
Defendant filed two motions for leave to withdraw his guilty plea in
Morris County. By way of context, defendant's financial records had been
seized by the State, but were ordered to be returned or made available to him for
copying first on October 1, 2014, and again on March 13, 2015, in various civil
A-0724-17T1
11
suits filed against him by aggrieved insurance companies. Six days prior to the
entry of his guilty plea in Morris County, defendant told a prosecutor's
investigator that the amount he owed Aetna due to his criminal conduct was
based on tax insurance numbers (TINs). Furthermore, in civil lawsuits of which
the court took judicial notice in the first motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
defendant admitted that Allstate paid his facilities $1,783,628.62 in claims, and
that Encompass, an Allstate affiliate, paid his facilities $359,496.77. Defendant
also told the investigator that he knew Aetna sought the return of overages only
for improper TINs reimbursals of up to $400,000.
The judge noted, when defendant first moved to withdraw his guilty plea
alleging the amount owed to Aetna did not satisfy the first-degree threshold of
$500,000, that he provided unnumbered printouts in support of his application
spanning from early 2012 to April 2014. The accusation, however, alleged
conduct beginning on May 28, 2010, and ending on June 6, 2014. The judge did
not consider the printouts to be dispositive.
Defendant's first motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea was heard
on June 14, 2017. His contention was that once he reviewed his records, it
became clear that Aetna was demanding only $413,136.20, not the $500,000
A-0724-17T1
12
necessary for a first-degree facilitation offense, and hence the factual basis for
the entry of the plea was inadequate, and the plea should be vacated.
The judge denied the motion in part because defendant had the Aetna
records at least two months before he entered the guilty plea, and more than two
years before the motion was filed. Furthermore, the application was made
approximately a month after defendant was denied admission to drug court. The
judge had read the interview in which defendant acknowledged, before the entry
of the plea, that reimbursement for Aetna was less than $500,000. After
reviewing the materials provided to him by both sides, the judge concluded that
the factual basis was adequate and that defendant could not credibly claim he
had been unaware of the amounts Aetna sought to recoup. When interviewed
on at least one occasion, defendant suggested to an investigator that he may have
misused TINs when submitting claims to insurers other than Aetna. The judge
therefore also presumed that the wrongful claims to the other companies may
have encompassed misuse of TINs.
Turning to the Slater2 factors, the judge not only referenced the rejection
from drug court as a significant motivator for defendant's motion to withdraw
2
State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009).
A-0724-17T1
13
from his guilty plea, but also the complete absence of any colorable claim of
innocence. The timing of the motion was suspect because defendant's wife,
whom the State recommended be placed on probation pursuant to defendant's
plea agreement, had already been sentenced. The judge observed that the State
would suffer substantial prejudice because of the many years of false claims that
would have to be reconstructed years after the events. All the co-defendants'
matters were disposed of by the time the motion was filed. Thus, the judge
opined the Slater standard was not met and denied the motion.
With the assistance of a new attorney, defendant filed a second motion in
Morris County to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant argued that his prior
attorney did not advise him that a second-degree offense did not include
mandatory parole ineligibility, an issue not raised on the first motion. During
the second motion, defendant relied principally on the earlier claim that the
amount in controversy was less than $500,000, and thus no adequate factual
basis existed for the plea.
In denying the second motion, the judge reiterated that defendant had the
relevant records months before the 2015 plea agreement. Defendant, he
concluded, knew or should have known of the discrepancy, if one existed. After
A-0724-17T1
14
that second motion was denied, 3 the judge scheduled defendant's sentence.
During the sentence proceeding, the judge noted that GEICO sought $868,000
in restitution, and that Allstate and its affiliates in combination sought millions.
In the Bergen County motion to withdraw, defense counsel contended that
defendant did not establish an adequate factual basis for that crime either.
Defendant acknowledged during his plea that he operated and managed a
radiology center in Clifton, which was a facility that used equipment including
an MRI covered by insurance. In reviewing the transcript, the court noted that
although defendant acknowledged deception in submitting a claim without any
actual entitlement, he did not specify the dollar amount. The judge concluded
that even though the factual basis was inadequate to establish a second-degree
crime, the equipment at issue, and thus the dollar value of the fraudulent claim,
placed the crime in at least the third-degree range. As a result, he decided that,
pursuant to State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393, 403-04 (2015), there was no proof of the
$75,000 loss but there was "at least a third-degree offense." Accordingly, the
judge sentenced defendant, albeit to the negotiated term of years, to an amended
third-degree offense, not the second-degree.
3
Defendant was not present at the motions to withdraw a guilty plea, having
been taken to the hospital emergency room shortly before argument.
A-0724-17T1
15
Now on appeal of the Morris County plea, defendant raises the following
points:
POINT ONE
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S
PRE-SENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS
GUILTY PLEA.
A. IN CONSIDERING THE DEFENDANT'S
COLORABLE CLAIM OF INNOCENCE, THE
COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENDANT
PROVES THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE
COMMITTED A FIRST-DEGREE CRIME.
B. IN CONSIDERING THE DEFENDANT'S
COLORABLE CLAIM OF INNOCENCE, THE
COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
FACTUAL BASIS PROVIDED BY THE
DEFENDANT WAS SUFFICIENT IN LIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIMS FROM AETNA.
C. IN CONSIDERING SLATER FACTOR TWO,
THE REASON FOR THE DEFENDANT'S FILING OF
HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW, AND SLATER
FACTOR FOUR, THE PREJUDICE OR
ADVANTAGE TO THE PARTIES, THE COURT
ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE LESS
STRINGENT STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO
ALL MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW A PLEA BEFORE
SENTENCING.
D. THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO
CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE
THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED
THAT THE CLAIMS BY AETNA COULD NOT
A-0724-17T1
16
HAVE AMOUNTED TO A FIRST-DEGREE
OFFENSE.
E. THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO
ADDRESS THE MAY 18, 2017 LETTER FROM
AETNA WHICH NOW STATES THAT . . . BOTH
FACILITIES WERE, IN FACT, LOCATED IN AN
OUT OF NETWORK AREA AND THEREFORE USE
OF THE WRONG TIN WOULD NOT AFFECT THE
BILLING AMOUNT.
POINT TWO
THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED
BECAUSE THE STATE HAS REFUSED TO HONOR
THE AGREEMENT.
A. THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE
THE STATE HAD REFUSED TO WRITE AN
IMMIGRATION LETTER AS REQUIRED UNDER
THE PLEA AGREEMENT.
B. THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE
THE STATE HAD REFUSED TO WRITE A PAROLE
LETTER AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PLEA
AGREEMENT.
POINT THREE
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE.
On appeal of the Bergen County matter, defendant raises these points:
POINT ONE
THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED
BECAUSE THE STATE HAS REFUSED TO HONOR
THE AGREEMENT.
A-0724-17T1
17
POINT TWO
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE.
Appellate courts review de novo a trial court's denial of a defendant's
motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on an inadequate factual basis. Tate,
220 N.J. at 403-04 (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 336,
378 (1995)). Like the trial court, we only assess whether "the factual admissions
during a plea colloquy satisfy the elements of an offense." Id. at 404.
I.
A.
We address defendant's points on appeal as to the Morris County
agreement simultaneously. Defendant contends that once he realized he had
entered a guilty plea to a lesser offense, he should have been allowed to
withdraw.
The accusation alleges defendant:
did, with the intent to facilitate or promote criminal
activity, direct, organize, finance, plan, manage,
supervise, or control the transportation of or
transactions in property known or which a reasonable
person would believe to be derived from criminal
activity in an amount greater than $500,000.00; that is,
the said REHAN ZUBERI did direct, organize, finance,
plan, manage, supervise, or control the transaction of
more than $500,000.00 that was known or which a
reasonable person would believe to be derived from
A-0724-17T1
18
criminal activity, particularly Health Care Claims
Fraud by altering the TIN of the location where MRI
services were provided to increase reimbursements, and
the said REHAN ZUBERI engaged in transactions that
he knew were designed, in whole or in part, to conceal
or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or
control of the property derived from criminal activity
or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement, and the
said financial transactions were designed to facilitate or
promote the criminal activity of Health Care Claims
Fraud, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-
4.3c and against the peace of this State, the government,
and dignity of the same.
We do not disagree that defendant's factual basis could have included
more detail. Neither the judge nor the attorneys asked defendant open-ended
questions that elicited the full picture of the fraud in defendant's own words as
charged in the accusation. The accusation states that defendant engaged in
various behaviors constituting wholesale financial facilitation of healthcare
claims fraud. But by adhering to leading questions narrowly focused on TINs,
the groundwork was laid for defendant's contention that the factual basis was
inadequate. When establishing a factual basis, defendants are too often asked
the narrowest of leading questions requiring only a yes or no response, which
sets the stage for later motion practice.
But this is an unusual case. This defendant knew the exact proofs the
State had against him — it was, after all, documentation taken from his
A-0724-17T1
19
businesses. Defendant would learn nothing new from discovery, unlike other
prosecutions. Defendant had the specific records he referred to in his plea
allocution in his possession days, if not months or years, before the entry of his
guilty plea. Defendant, when interviewed by an investigator before his guilty
plea, said that the Aetna claims could be between $200,000 and $400,000. That
range is less than a first-degree crime, and defendant knew it.
Defendant was intimately familiar with the State's allegations, had the
proofs in his possession, and readily confessed before the plea. Having the
information before the entry of the plea means defendant clearly, indisputably
knew or should have known the amounts in question.
Putting together side-by-side the judge's plea colloquy with the language
of the accusation, however, it is clear defendant did plead guilty to the offenses
charged in the accusation, which overall exceed $500,000. Early in the plea
colloquy, the judge asked defendant simply if he committed the offenses to
which he was pleading guilty. Defendant's response was "Yes, I did." The
accusation does not merely allege a fraud by use of TINs — it alleges the frauds
perpetrated by engaging in transactions defendant knew were "designed, in
whole or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership
or control of the property derived from criminal activity or to avoid a transaction
A-0724-17T1
20
reporting requirement, and the said financial transactions were designed to
facilitate or promote the criminal activity of Health Care Claims Fraud, contrary
to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.3c . . . ." The judge's question and
defendant's response, when read in tandem with the accusation, demonstrates
that defendant acknowledged more than just the TINs claims submitted to Aetna.
He acknowledged committing wrongful transactions other than just abuse of
TINs. His own attorney — while making specific reference to the TINs — also
asked him, and he acknowledged, committing healthcare fraud in amounts
exceeding $500,000. Even if we were to entertain for the sake of argument that
the use of TINs was the limited basis for the entry of the guilty plea, the fact
Aetna separately sought to recover less than $500,000 from defendant does not
prove he defrauded the insurer by that amount.
To allow defendant to withdraw from the plea based on a lack of adequate
factual basis at this stage would allow him to manipulate the system once he had
received all the benefits of his plea agreement – and the State would be left in a
worse position than before the plea was entered. Defendant raised no defenses
during his plea allocution. This is a sophisticated individual who is not an
innocent person being punished for a crime he did not commit. See Tate, 220
N.J. at 405. The strained reading of the plea colloquy he now urges is illogical.
A-0724-17T1
21
When he entered his guilty plea, defendant did not distance himself from the
"distasteful reality" of a multi-million dollar medical insurance fraud scheme he
initiated not long after being released from prison for similar conduct. See ibid.
Since we reject defendant's claim that no adequate factual basis was
proffered, we next consider whether withdrawal from the guilty plea is
warranted pursuant to State v. Slater, 198 N.J. at 145. Like the Law Division
judge, we conclude defendant has not met that four-prong test. See id. at 157-
58.
In denying defendant's motion, the judge thoroughly analyzed those four
prongs. They are "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a colorable claim of
innocence; (2) the nature and strength of defendant's reasons for withdrawal; (3)
the existence of a plea bargain; and (4) whether withdrawal [will] result in unfair
prejudice to the State or unfair advantage to the accused." Ibid.
We review appeals from Slater motions for abuse of discretion. State v.
Munroe, 210 N.J. 429, 448 (2012). Guilty pleas are vacated at the trial court's
discretion. Slater, 198 N.J. at 156 (citing State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 444
(1999)). The motion was made pre-sentence, meaning it should be vacated if
the "interest of justice would not be served by effectuating the agreement." R.
3:9-3(e); see Slater, 198 N.J. at 158.
A-0724-17T1
22
No abuse of discretion was committed by the court here. Defendant failed
to meet the first prong of the Slater test. He does not claim innocence — he
merely disputes the dollar amount of his fraud as to one insurer. As to the second
factor, the judge made appropriate "qualitative assessments about the nature of
[] defendant's reasons for moving to withdraw his plea and the strength of his
case and . . . ma[de] credibility determinations . . . ." Tate, 220 N.J. at 404.
Although not the judge who accepted defendant's guilty plea, the judge who
denied the motions to withdraw and for reconsideration had a nuanced
understanding of the case. Defendant's application followed his rejection from
the drug court program and his wife obtaining the benefit of his bargain by virtue
of her probationary sentence. The third factor, that a plea bargain exists, is not
in dispute. As to the fourth factor, the judge found the State would be severely
prejudiced if defendant were permitted to withdraw because of the difficulties
associated with recreating a paper trail for thousands of medical claims
submitted by several MRI centers beginning in 2010. It would result in an unfair
advantage to defendant. The judge's reasons were supported by the record and
legally sound. No abuse of discretion occurred.
A-0724-17T1
23
B.
Defendant also claims his sentence was excessive. In sentencing,
however, the judge thoroughly reviewed defendant's circumstances, the offense,
and the applicable law. With ample support in the record, he found: aggravating
factor three, the likelihood of re-offense; five, the substantial likelihood that
defendant was involved in organized crime; six, defendant's prior criminal
history; and nine, the need to deter. He also found mitigating factor six because
defendant agreed to significant restitution jointly and severally with others;
eleven because his absence would cause hardship to his family, including his
elderly parents; and twelve because he cooperated with the authorities in the
prosecution of others. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a), (b). We do not substitute our
judgment for that of the sentencing court so long as each factor is supported by
the evidence. See State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70, 72 (2014). Even though the
judge opined the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the
judge nonetheless gave defendant the benefit of the doubt and imposed the
negotiated sentence. Defendant's imprisonment of eight years with eight months
of parole ineligibility, concurrent to six years, was neither a clearly mistaken
sentence nor shocks our conscience. See State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 166-67
(2006); State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-66 (1984). The judge followed the
A-0724-17T1
24
sentencing guidelines, grounded his findings regarding the aggravating and
mitigating factors on competent, credible evidence in the record, and reasonably
applied the sentencing guidelines.
II.
In the Bergen County appeal, defendant first challenges the State's failure
to produce the letters negotiated as part of the plea agreement. We were advised
at oral argument, however, that the letters have been supplied, making
defendant's argument moot. See Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super.
301, 311 (App. Div. 2010) ("A case is technically moot when the original issue
presented has been resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the
litigation.") (internal citations omitted).
Defendant also challenges the sentence as excessive. Although the Bergen
County judge denied defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea due to the
alleged failure to establish a factual basis, he reduced the offense from a second-
degree to a third-degree crime upon reviewing the proofs. He sentenced
defendant to the same five-year term, concurrent to the Morris County sentence,
called for by the agreement after thoroughly canvassing the record. He found
aggravating factors three, six, and nine, and mitigating factors six, eleven, and
twelve. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a), (b). The Bergen sentence, the product of the
A-0724-17T1
25
judge's thoughtful weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, was also
supported by the competent, credible evidence in the record. See Fuentes, 217
N.J. at 72. It was not clearly mistaken. It adhered to the guidelines and does
not shock our conscience. See Pierce, 188 N.J. at 166-67; Roth, 95 N.J. at 364-
66.
Affirmed.
A-0724-17T1
26