[brief] Defendant's sentence must be reversed because the court's findings on the aggravating and mitigating factors were not supported by competent, credible evidence in the record and because the court failed to provide a detailed reasoned explanation for its finding of contradictory factors.  Prior to his arrest on these charges, defendant had had a single municipal court conviction in Philadelphia for receiving stolen property in 1995 and a single disorderly persons conviction in New Jersey for simple assault in 2013 (PSR).  The court never explained how these two non-indictable offenses supported a finding that defendant had a prior extensive record sufficient to be afforded "moderate" weight in sentencing.  Moreover, the court provided no explanation for its contradictory finding of aggravating factor six, the extent of defendant's prior record, and mitigating factor seven, that he had led a law-abiding life for a significant time before the offense.  Similarly, the court's finding of aggravating factor three, the risk that the defendant will commit another offense, also stands in unexplained "counterpoise" to its finding of mitigating factor seven.  *State v. Case*, 220 N.J. 49, 67 (2014).  In exceptional circumstances, courts may find it necessary to apply seemingly contradictory aggravating and mitigating factors.  *State v. Fuentes*, 217 N.J. 57, 80 (2014).  But the trial court's sentencing findings must be supported by sufficient, competent credible evidence in the record and the court must provide a reasoned explanation that reconciles any seemingly contradictory findings on aggravating and mitigating factors.  *State v. Case*, 220 at 67; *State v. Fuentes*, 217 N.J at 81.  That did not occur here.  In addition, the court failed to explain its unclear and contradictory findings of aggravating factor nine, the need for deterrence and its statement during sentencing that it also gave "slight weight" to mitigating factor eight, that defendant's conduct was unlikely to recur.  The record will rarely support a finding of both of these factors.  *State v. Fuentes*, 217 N.J. at 80.  But when it does, the court must explain how it reconciles those two factors and how it balances the weight assigned to each, and it must address both specific and general deterrence.  *Id.* at 81.  In this case, the court's failure to provide these explanations was especially problematic because, although the court said it found the existence of mitigating factor eight, that factor was not included on defendant's JOC.  At minimum, defendant's JOC must be amended to reflect the addition of this mitigating factor.  In addition to its unexplained, contradictory findings on the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court clearly was confused as to the range of possible sentences for robbery and the required minimum terms for each offense.  It seemed that the court, either was unaware of the sentencing range for first-degree robbery or was unaware that defendant was being sentenced on a first-degree offense, and it also seemed unaware that the robbery and manslaughter convictions were subject to NERA.  Furthermore, it improperly sentenced defendant on offenses that merged.  Defendant's sentence must be reversed because the court's findings on the aggravating and mitigating factors were contradictory and unclear, and because they were not supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.