Skip to main content

Citations

  • 938 A.2d 953
  • 397 N.J. Super. 598

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding sentence downgrade was not appropriate where the mitigating factors did not substantially preponderate, the interests of justice would not be served, and the crime was serious in nature
  • noting that defendant's confession was not entitled to any substantial weight in the absence of any indication defendant had identified any other perpetrators or assisted the State in solving other crimes
  • finding a \defendant's confession was not entitled to any substantial weight in determining his sentence in view of its limited benefit to the State\
  • questioning whether a defendant's confession warrants a finding of mitigating factor twelve because the defendant did not identify another perpetrator or help law enforcement solve other crimes
  • questioning whether even \a confession qualifies as 'cooperation' within the intent of\ N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(12)
  • questioning whether a confession qualifies as a mitigating factor, and holding that a defendant's confession that provided a limited benefit to the State was not entitled to any substantial weight in determining a sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judges Skillman, Winkelstein and Yannotti

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.