[brief] THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY SENTENCED DEFENDANT.  (11T18-1 to 27-22; Da7 to 9).  Defendant claims the sixty-year sentence that was imposed for his murder conviction is manifestly excessive.  Defendant’s claim is without merit.  The trial court aptly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, and after properly finding and weighing same, imposed a sixty-year term of imprisonment.  Moreover, the trial court properly considered the overall fairness of the sentence, which does not shock the judicial conscious.  Accordingly, defendant’s sentence should be affirmed on appeal.  “Appellate courts review sentencing determinations in accordance with a deferential standard. ”  State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014).  The reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court.  *State v. O’Donnell*, 117 N.J. 210, 215 (1989).  The sentence must be affirmed unless: (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) “the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience. ”  [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (quoting *State v. Roth*, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984))].  Additionally, trial courts may impose consecutive sentences after considering the *Yarbough* factors and stating the reasons for imposing consecutives sentences.  *State v. Torres*, 246 N.J. 246 (2021); *State v. Cuff*, 239 N.J. 321, 347-52 (2019).  Those reasons also must address the overall fairness of the sentence.  *Id.* at 267-68.  Ultimately, an appellate court may not modify a defendant’s sentence unless it is convinced that the sentencing judge was clearly mistaken.  *State v. Johnson*, 118 N.J. 10, 15 (1990); *State v. Jabbour*, 118 N.J. 1, 6 (1990).  Defendant does not challenge the court’s finding of aggravating factors or mitigating factors.  Rather, he claims the court failed to conduct a real --- 5 *State v. Yarbough*, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).  “Torres/Cuff” analysis.  Defendant’s claim is belied by the record.  Foremost, the court did not impose consecutive sentences.  Accordingly, the concerns of Torres are not implicated.  Furthermore, the trial court explicitly acknowledged Torres in crafting a sentence.  (11T24-13 to 19).  Specifically, the trial court commented upon how a heavy sentence on an older defendant, such as defendant, can in essence be a life sentence, compared to such a sentence on a younger defendant.  (11T24-20 to 25-6).  The trial court then stated that it nevertheless found it was appropriate to go “considerably above” to the very top end of the sentence, that it “could go to life,” but that it would not.  (11T25-7 to 13).  Thus, although defendant may disagree with the court’s findings, the record clearly belies his assertion that the trial court failed to consider the overall fairness of the sentence.  Indeed, the record establishes that the trial court aptly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and properly found and weighed same.  The court then considered the permissible range, and aptly imposed a sixty-year term of imprisonment.  This sentence does not shock the judicial conscious and was not an abuse of discretion.  Accordingly, defendant’s sentence should be affirmed on appeal.  CONCLUSION