Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Hawks

214 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 1986)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Hawks

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hawks

    114 N.J. 359 (N.J. 1989)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that plain language of the statute did not limit sequence but only required prior conviction

    The precise question is whether those provisions apply to a defendant whose first Graves Act offense is the subject of his second Graves Act conviction. The majority in the Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 214 N.J. Super. 430 (1986), upheld the trial court's imposition of an extended term, a result consistent with Statev. Windsor, 205 N.J. Super. 450 (Law Div. 1985).

  2. State v. Hawks

    537 A.2d 1284 (N.J. 1987)

    Petition for certification denied. (See 214 N.J. Super. 430)

  3. State v. Kirk

    243 N.J. Super. 636 (App. Div. 1990)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that "so long as the issue of defendant's sentence is properly before the court, the court may correct an illegal sentence, even by increasing the term" thereof

    The trial judge's three sentencing decisions in this case involved the same issue of Graves Act first or second offender status which has now been the subject of three reported opinions. State v. Windsor, 205 N.J. Super. 450, 501 A.2d 194 (Law Div. 1985); State v. Lightfoot, 208 N.J. Super. 475, 479, 506 A.2d 363 (App.Div. 1986), overruling State v. Windsor; and State v. Hawks, 114 N.J. 359, 554 A.2d 1330 (1989), overruling State v. Lightfoot, and affirming the Appellate Division decision in Hawks reported at 214 N.J. Super. 430, 519 A.2d 922 (App.Div. 1986), with the author of Windsor concurring, but with the author of Lightfoot dissenting. The trial judge in the case before us followed the then-existing case law in each of the three sentences he imposed on defendant.

  4. State v. Mangrella

    214 N.J. Super. 437 (App. Div. 1986)   Cited 34 times
    In State v. Mangrella, 214 N.J. Super. 437, 519 A.2d 926 (1986), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 127, 526 A.2d 194 (1987), the Appellate Division, applying the Code's plain language in the context of the provision authorizing extended sentences for persistent offenders, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3a, held that the sentencing court may consider any conviction prior to sentencing "provided that there is no pending appeal or right of direct appeal."

    Our courts have struggled with the chronological prerequisite of convictions for purposes of the mandatory extended term provisions of the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c, 2C:43-7c and 2C:44-3d. In State v. Hawks, 214 N.J. Super. 430 (App.Div. 198 6) and State v. Windsor, 205 N.J. Super. 450 (Law Div. 1985) it was held that the chronology of the events and offenses was irrelevant so long as judgments were entered prior to the sentencing of the matter before the court. Prior to Hawks, State v. Windsor was overruled in State v. Lightfoot, 208 N.J. Super. 475 (App.Div. 1986) which also dealt with the mandatory extended term criteria under the Graves Act.