[brief] N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1.  The court found that aggravating factor (1), that the crime was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner did not apply.  It found that aggravating factor (2), the gravity and seriousness of the harm inflicted on the victim, did not apply because "no victim was seriously physically harmed in any of these incidents" and the child victims "were not of extreme youth."  (20T43-15 to 19).  The trial court found the same aggravating factors it did at the original sentencing: (3), the risk that defendant will commit another offense, (6) the extent of defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses of conviction, and (9), the need to deter and found that each of these three factors weighed heavily.  The trial court rejected all mitigating factors.  As to mitigating factor (9), that character and attitude of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit another offense, the trial court stated that petitioner’s "callous actions reveal" that this mitigating factor does not apply.  (20T53-7 to 25)  The court stated that it does "not find that these submissions of any change that he's made while incarcerated" overcome what was revealed about petitioner’s character "based upon his actions in this case."  (20T52-23 to 53-3)  The trial court rejected that the impact of petitioner’s incarceration on his children required the finding of mitigating factor (11).  (20T53-7 to 22)  The trial court then did another Yarbough analysis.  Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, the trial court ran the three counts from the [...] robbery concurrent to each other.  (20T 56-7 to 68-22)  The trial court ran the unlawful possession of a weapon count from the [...] home invasion concurrent to the other counts, but maintained the consecutive nature of the two kidnaping charges.  (20T66-18 to 70-22).  The trial court reasoned that the “[k]idnaping of Mr. [...] is a separate crime of violence that took place after the defendant had broken into the home, terrorized the children, and waited for Mr. [...] and his wife to come home so that he could effectuate the robbery of Mr. [...]. ”  (20T70-6 to 21)  The court then ran the counts stemming from each incident consecutive to each other.  In doing so, it reasoned that “[t]he crimes and their objectives were independent of each other having occurred on three separate dates in three separate municipalities.  They are separate and distinct crimes.  The crimes involve separate acts of violence or threat of violence and were committed at separate times and places. ”  (20T56-20 to 57-2)  “In focusing on the overall fairness of the sentence,” the trial court reduced the sentence for possession of a weapon stemming from the car stop from eight years with a four-year parole disqualifier to six years with a 42-month parole disqualifier.  (20T61-18 to 25)  The original sentences otherwise remained: 18 years NERA for the armed robbery of Mr. [...] and two 23 year NERA sentences for the kidnaping of Mr. [...] and one of his daughters.  The court noted that the “defendant is making some progress while he’s in prison,” but did not explain how that progress related to the ultimate sentence imposed: 70 years in prison, 57.9 years to be served before [...] is eligible for parole.  (20T64-4 to 5, 71-2 to 22; Da192 to 196).  As a result of this new sentence, [...] will not be released until he is 83 years, 11 months, and 14 days old.  E.