STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM K. LANE (07-12-1157, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NO. A-3860-19T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM K. LANE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted September 15, 2020 — Decided September 21, 2020
Before Judges Haas and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Accusation No. 07-12-1157.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Olivia J. Moorhead, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Renee M. Robeson, Senior Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant William Lane appeals from a June 19, 2020 order denying a
motion to amend his sentence and permit his release for medical reasons
pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). We affirm.
On April 18, 2008, defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated
manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty-two years' incarceration subject to
the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. He becomes parole eligible on
December 30, 2023. In 2012, defendant was transferred to a Massachusetts
correctional facility, where he is currently held.
Defendant filed the motion to amend his sentence seeking early release or
suspension of the sentence due to the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing he suffers
from asthma, pneumonia, hypertension, and chest pain, and that these medical
conditions and his age place him at risk. Judge Robert W. Bingham, II, issued
a written decision denying defendant's motion. The judge recounted defendant's
admissions to the hospital and medical treatments between 2016 and 2019 , and
subsequent return to prison after each admission. The judge also considered the
letters of support defendant offered from family, friends, and faculty and
students from a Boston University prison education program, evidencing
defendant's rehabilitation during his incarceration.
A-3860-19T4
2
However, the judge denied the motion because defendant is serving a
mandatory term of imprisonment, is parole ineligible, and
a mandatory term of parole . . . ineligibility cannot be
reduced or changed under the [Rule]. State v. Mendel,
212 N.J. Super. 110[, 113] (App. Div. 1986). The
[Mendel] panel explained that the court can consider an
application under R[ule] 3:21-10(b) relative to a
discretionary period of parole ineligibility, but "a
sentence cannot be changed or reduced under R[ule]
3:21-10(b) below the parole ineligibility term required
by statute. R[ule] 3:21-10(b) was never intended to
permit the change or reduction of a custodial sentence
which is required by law." Mendel, 212 N.J. Super. at
112-13.
Judge Bingham also found defendant did not satisfy the State v. Priester1
factors for release pursuant to the Rule because defendant was successfully
treated and returned to the prison population on many occasions and "[t]hough
he may have conditions that elevate his risk of COVID-19, there is no indication
that he has any such symptoms of the infection or that the prison would be
incapable of addressing them." Additionally, although defendant made strides
toward rehabilitation, mitigating the risk to the public if defendant were
released, the judge found "the nature and severity of [defendant's] crime . . .
1
99 N.J. 123 (1985).
A-3860-19T4
3
extremely serious. The severity of the sentence reflects the severity of the
crime."
Defendant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I: APPELLANT IS NOT BARRED FROM
RELIEF UNDER RULE 3:21-10(B)(2) DUE TO
PAROLE DISQUALIFIER AS IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A CHANGE OF SENTENCE.
POINT II: APPELLANT HAS MET THE LEGAL
STANDARD FOR RELEASE UNDER STATE V.
PRIESTER, HAVING SHOWN THE DELETERIOUS
EFFECT INCARCERATION HAS HAD ON HIS
HEALTH, DUE TO HIS UNDERLYING MEDICAL
CONDITIONS AND ONGOING COVID-19
PANDEMIC, AND SEEKS A NEW HEARING.
A sentencing amendment under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) "must be applied
prudently, sparingly, and cautiously." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135. Moreover, "[a]
motion made pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) is committed to the sound
discretion of the [trial] court." Ibid.
Having considered defendant's arguments, we affirm for the reasons
expressed in Judge Bingham's thorough and well-written decision. Defendant's
statutory ineligibility for parole clearly barred his motion. Although the judge
was not required to also address the Priester factors in light of the procedural
bar, we discern no abuse of discretion by the judge finding defendant's
A-3860-19T4
4
successful medical treatment during incarceration, the availability of such
medical care, and the severity of his crime, did not warrant early release.
Affirmed.
A-3860-19T4
5