Although the guidelines adopted within each county may avoid arbitrariness with respect to decision-making among individual prosecutors, and while we concede that "some disparity in sentencing is inevitable in the administration of criminal justice," Roach, supra, 146 N.J. at 234, 680 A.2d 634, the formalization of disparity from county to county is clearly impermissible. See State v. Press, 278 N.J. Super. 589, 603, 651 A.2d 1068 (App.Div.) (Stern, J., dissenting), certif. denied, 140 N.J. 329, 658 A.2d 729 (1995), appealdismissed, 144 N.J. 373, 676 A.2d 1089 (1996).

Cross-pet. Denied. 278 N.J. Super. 589 651 A.2d 1068

Denied. 278 N.J. Super. 589 651 A.2d 1068

The premise supporting the constitutionality of the sentencing scheme collapsed "`when the scheme itself promote[d] or formalize[d] the potential arbitrariness by permitting deviation from county to county.'" Ibid. (quoting State v.Press, 278 N.J. Super. 589, 603 (App.Div.) (Stern, J., dissenting),certif. denied, 140 N.J. 329 (1995), appeal dismissed, 144 N.J. 373 (1996)).

We fully appreciate that allowing counties to adopt their own guidelines, in addition to the significant prosecutorial discretion within the county system, may lead to disparity rather than uniformity in sentencing. State v. Press, 278 N.J. Super. 589, 603-04, 651 A.2d 1068 (App.Div.) (Stern, J.A.D., dissenting), certif. denied, 140 N.J. 328, 329, 658 A.2d 727, 729 and appeal dismissed, 144 N.J. 373, 676 A.2d 1089 (1996).

As such we will consider them abandoned. See State v. Press, 278 N.J. Super. 589, 596 (App. Div. 1995) (determining that an "issue [that] was not briefed or argued . . . should not [be] address[ed]"); State v. L.D., 444 N.J. Super. 45, 56 n.7 (App. Div. 2016) ("[A]n issue not briefed is waived.").

The State responds that R. 3:93(a) "explicitly forbids . . . judicial involvement in the plea bargaining process" and notes that "a defendant has no legal entitlement to [a] plea bargain, and [that] the decision whether to engage in such bargaining rests with the Prosecutor," citing State v. Williams, 277 N.J. Super. 40, 46, 648 A.2d 1148 (App.Div. 1994). The State further notes that our Supreme Court has "directed the Attorney General to promulgate guidelines to assist prosecutorial decision making in the exercise of discretion pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12]," and that in State v. Press, 278 N.J. Super. 589, 651 A.2d 1068 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 140 N.J. 328, 658 A.2d 727, certif. denied, 140 N.J. 329, 658 A.2d 729 (1995), appeal dismissed, 144 N.J. 373, 676 A.2d 1089 (1996), we held that there can be a basis for different prosecutorial policies as to plea bargaining in school zone cases in the various counties based upon the resources, limitations and priorities of each county. But see State v. Gerns, 145 N.J. 216, 231-32, 678 A.2d 634 (1996) (disparity issue to be reviewed by Attorney General and addressed by Supreme Court administratively).