[brief] N.J.S.A. 4:22-26.2 was enacted on July 26, 2023, a month after the Defendant was sentenced.  This statute, which went into effect immediately, allows a judge to sentence a defendant, who was convicted of animal cruelty, to “not harbor, reside with, or have custody or control of any other animals for a period of time that the court deems appropriate. ”  N.J.S.A. 4:22-26.2(b)(2).  Defense contends that because the Legislature did not intend N.J.S.A. 4:22-26.2(b)(2) to apply retroactively, the sentence imposed on the Defendant is illegal and should be overturned.  Ex Post Facto states that any statute which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, is prohibited as ex post facto.  Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Bd. 219 N.J. 270, 284 (2014) (citing U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 10, cl. 1).  The Ex Post Facto Clause bars a legislature from retroactively altering the definition of crimes or increasing the punishment for the criminal acts after commission of a crime.  Ibid.  Two findings must be made for a law to violate the ex post facto prohibition.  Id. at 285.  A court must first determine that the law is “retrospective. ”  Ibid. (citing Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 430 (1987)).  A law is retrospective if it “appl[ies] to events occurring before its enactment” or “if it ‘changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date. ’”  Ibid.  Second, the Court must determine whether the law, as retrospectively applied, imposes additional punishment for an already completed crime.  Ibid. (citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 370 (1997)).  The State does not dispute that this statute was enacted after the Defendant was sentenced, but to say the sentence violates ex post facto laws is incredibly false.  Defendant was sentenced well before the new statute went into effect.  This new statute was not contemplated by the sentencing judge, nor was the defendant affected at all by its enactment.  The new statute is not retrospective as it does not apply to events occurring before its enactment nor does it impose additional punishments to already completed crimes because, once again, the Defendant was not sentenced under this statute.  This Statute had absolutely no effect on the Defendant at the time of sentencing.  This is not a situation where the week before Defendant was sentenced, this new statute was published, and he was sentenced in accordance with it.  This new statute went into effect well after the Defendant had been sentenced and well into his sentence of 180 days in [...].  Defense counsel seems to be arguing that all sentences previously imposed become illegal once new legislation is enacted that alters the previous sentencing guidelines, which is nonsensical.  Further, the new legislation makes banning a defendant from ever owning, possession, or having control over an animal again permissible.  This goes to show that the sentencing judge was not off base when he imposed such a sentence as just a month later, the legislature clearly approved such a result.  Based on the above, the sentencing judge did not impose an illegal sentence, therefore Defendant’s sentence and conviction should be affirmed.