Title: State v. Saul Molina

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Coleman, J., writing for a majority of the Court. This is a companion case to State v. Carey, also decided today. The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for two vehicular-homicide convictions that arose from a single vehicular accident. A second issue is whether the trial court's failure to include a statement of reasons for imposing consecutive sentences supports a remand. On May 13, 1995, Saul Molina was driving a vehicle while intoxicated and swerved onto oncoming traffic on Route 54 near Hammonton. Molina's vehicle first hit one vehicle, causing it to roll over. The driver and passenger of that vehicle suffered only minor injuries. Molina's vehicle then collided with a second vehicle driven by George Rodriguez and carrying three passengers. George Rodriguez died at the scene from a severe spinal cord injury, one of the passengers had to be air lifted with severe injuries and died a short time later, while the other two passengers sustained less serious injuries. Molina and his passenger suffered only minor cuts and bruises. A blood sample taken from Molina approximately one hour and fifteen minutes after the accident showed that Molina had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .069. Molina was convicted on two counts of vehicular homicide and sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment with a two and one-half year parole disqualifier on each count (total of ten years, five years of parole ineligibility). The trial court did not place on the record its reasons for imposing consecutive terms, only stating that it would impose sentences on each of the deaths and that the sentences would not be concurrent. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed Molina's convictions. Although acknowledging the trial court's failure to explicate its reasons for imposing consecutive terms, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certification. HELD: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the multiple-victim factor of the Yarbough criteria was by itself sufficient to support consecutive sentences. 1. Generally, the Code of Criminal Justice leaves the determination of whether to impose a consecutive sentence to the discretion of the court. In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), this Court recognized the need for sentencing uniformity and established certain criteria to assist trial courts in deciding whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. Included in the guidelines set forth in Yarbough are five facts relating to the crimes. The only factor supporting consecutive sentences in the present case is the presence of multiple-victims. Consistent with this Court's holding in the companion case of State v. Carey, also decided today, the multiple-victim factor alone is sufficient to support consecutive sentences. The trial court's failure to include a statement of reasons, though crucial to the appellate review process, does not require a remand where the sentences clearly fall within the sentencing guidelines. (Pp.6-9) Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE LONG has filed a separate, dissenting opinion, expressing her disagreement with the majority's conclusion that a multiple-victims case should ordinarily result in consecutive sentences, for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in the companion case, State v. Carey. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, VERNIERO and LaVECCHIA join in JUSTICE COLEMAN'S opinion. JUSTICE LONG has filed a separate, dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE ZAZZALI joins. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 123 September Term 1999 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAUL MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant. Argued March 13, 2001 -- Decided July 9, 2001 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Matthew Astore, Deputy Public Defender II, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney; William P. Welaj, Designated Counsel, and Mr. Astore, on the briefs). Russell J. Curley, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by COLEMAN, J. This is a companion case to State v. Carey, N.J. (2001), also decided today, which raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for two vehicular-homicide convictions that arose from a single vehicular accident. As we held in Carey, when it is foreseeable that multiple victims are likely to be injured by the defendant's conduct, ordinarily two consecutive sentences should be imposed under the sentencing guidelines set forth in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S. Ct. 1193, 89 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm defendant's sentences. STATE OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff-Respondent, V. SAUL MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ LONG, J., dissenting. In this case, the trial court sentenced defendant to the maximum custodial term of five years with a parole ineligibility period of two-and-one-half years on each of two counts of Death by Auto. The court designated the terms to run consecutively with no mention of Yarbough or its criteria. Noting that multiple-victims is the only factor that supports consecutive sentencing here, the majority upholds the sentences based on its conclusion in State v. Carey, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (slip op. at 19) that a multiple-victims case should ordinarily result in the imposition of at least two consecutive terms. I dissent essentially for the reasons set forth in my opinion in State v. Carey, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2001). I object as well to the fact that the majority has affirmed consecutive sentencing without regard to the trial court's imposition of the maximum term on each conviction that in itself violates the principle of Yarbough that successive terms for the same offense should not ordinarily be equal to the punishment for the first offense. State v. Rogers, 124 N.J. 113, 119 (1991). Moreover, it is well established that where the offenses are closely related it would ordinarily be inappropriate to sentence a defendant to the maximum term for each offense and also require that those sentences be served consecutively. State v. J.G., 261 N.J. Super. 409, 427 (App. Div.) (citing State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112, 122 (1987)), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 436 (1993). Accordingly, I would reverse the Appellate Division decision and remand for resentencing. Justice Zazzali joins in this opinion. NO. A-123 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAUL MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED July 9, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz