State v. Liepe

48 Citing cases

  1. State v. Torres

    246 N.J. 246 (N.J. 2021)   Cited 153 times
    Requiring an "explanation for the overall fairness of a sentence"

    Through the years, our Court has sought again and again to underscore that concepts of uniformity, predictability, and proportionality in sentencing birthed the Yarbough factors. See, e.g., State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 371-72, 217 A.3d 151 (2019) ; State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 427-28, 775 A.2d 495 (2001). In this matter, we again take steps to promote those goals, as we also await further action by the New Jersey Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission, which may touch on some policy-laden sentencing arguments advanced in this appeal.

  2. State v. Dangcil

    No. A-2118-20 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2023)

    [State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 371 (2019) (quoting State v. McGuire, 419 N.J.Super. 88, 158 (App. Div. 2011)).]

  3. State v. Field

    DOCKET NO. A-0432-17T4 (App. Div. Aug. 13, 2020)

    "A sixth factor, which imposed 'an overall outer limit on the cumulation of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses not to exceed the sum of the longest terms,' was eliminated by the Legislature in a 1993 amendment to" N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(a). State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 372 n.4 (2019). The statute now provides "[t]here shall be no overall outer limit on the cumulation of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses."

  4. State v. Alhardan

    No. A-1985-20 (App. Div. Dec. 27, 2024)

    "We 'must not substitute [our] judgment for that of the sentencing court.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 370 (2019)). Nevertheless, we are charged with ensuring the trial court's findings and balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors are supported by adequate evidence in the record and that the sentence imposed is neither inconsistent with the sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice nor shocking to the judicial conscience.

  5. State v. Vanderee

    476 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2023)   Cited 15 times

    We "must not ‘substitute [our] judgment for that of the sentencing court.’ " State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 370, 217 A.3d 151 (2019) (quoting State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70, 85 A.3d 923 (2014) ). Instead, we will affirm a trial court's sentence unless: "(1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the findings of aggravating and mitigating factors were not ‘based upon competent credible evidence in the record;’ or (3) ‘the application of the guidelines to the facts’ of the case ‘shock[s] the judicial conscience.’

  6. State v. Patterson

    No. A-1875-19 (App. Div. Feb. 28, 2022)

    To promote sentencing uniformity while preserving a reasonable amount of discretion for the sentencing court, Yarbough established guidelines to assist judges in deciding whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 372 (2019) (citing State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 422 (2001)).

  7. State v. Jones

    DOCKET NO. A-5502-18T2 (App. Div. Dec. 24, 2020)

    Defendant contends that his ten-year term sentence was excessive. We review a trial court's sentencing determination deferentially, State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013), and do not ordinarily substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing court. State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 370-71 (2019) (citing State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014)). Our review is limited to consideration of:

  8. State v. Locane

    DOCKET NO. A-2828-18T4 (App. Div. Jul. 22, 2020)

    The relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, with emphasis on the crime committed drive the sentence—not a comparison of criminal defendants as if they were widgets. In State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359 (2019), a case decided some months after this sentence, the Court discussed the process of sentencing. The discussion warrants repetition as it lays out the concerns we have about what happened here.

  9. State v. Jones

    DOCKET NO. A-1499-18T2 (App. Div. Mar. 17, 2020)

    Finally, we address defendant's contention that his fifty-year NERA extended-term sentence was excessive. In State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359 (2019), the Court reiterated that in reviewing a sentence, we do not ordinarily substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing court. Id. at 370-71.

  10. State v. Bohrer

    No. A-3324-21 (App. Div. Feb. 3, 2025)

    [Ibid. (quoting State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 371 (2019))].