[brief] [...]’s exemplary conduct demonstrates that she is unlikely to commit any new offenses when she is released from prison.  Third, the court erred in giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors 3, strong provocation, 4, substantial grounds tending to excuse, and 5, victim’s conduct facilitated the crime.  The court found these factors, though gave them “strong weight. ”  (12T 32-21 to 35-21, 36-3 to 10)  The court explained its weighing in part by making findings that were inconsistent with the jury’s acquittals – something prohibited by our law.  *State v. Melvin*, 248 N.J. 321, 349 (2021) (“In order to protect the integrity of our Constitution’s right to a criminal trial by jury, we simply cannot allow a jury’s verdict to be ignored through judicial fact-finding at sentencing.  Such a practice defies the principles of due process and fundamental fairness. ”).  For example, the court explains that in its review of the surveillance video, [...] is “casually” sifting through the car and “There’s no apparent distress.  There’s no apparent urgency. ”  (12T 33-13 to 20)  This finding by the court directly contradicts the jury’s verdict that [...] did not commit murder but instead was adequately provoked and did not have time to cool off.  The court was not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the jury’s.  The court’s impermissible weighing of these mitigating factors also requires a remand for resentencing.  Fourth, although the court did not conduct the necessary overall weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing, the court noted on the judgment of conviction that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors.  (Da 25)  This statement should be removed from the judgment of conviction because it was not made by the court at sentencing.  Moreover, and more substantively, it was error to find that aggravating factors 3 and 9, which the court acknowledged apply in every case, outweighed the case-specific mitigating factors present here.  Even if the court’s finding of aggravating factors 3 and 9 was not error, the risk of re-offense and the need to deter [...] simply could not outweigh the unique and terrible circumstances that led to the commission of these crimes, [...]’s lack of any criminal history, and [...]’s exemplary rehabilitative efforts during her nearly two-year pretrial incarceration.  Finally, and in sum, the multiple errors at sentencing render [...]’s sentence excessive and require a remand for resentencing.  If the court had made appropriate findings regarding the applicable mitigating and aggravated factors, it would have imposed a shorter sentence.  [...]’s sentence of seven years NERA for passion/provocation following a violent sexual assault is excessive.  Moreover, the court’s imposition of the maximum sentence of five years for theft and 18 months for the various fourth-degree offenses was equally excessive.  These offenses represented [...]’s first convictions, and they were the result of a traumatic and violent assault by someone she considered a friend.  If this Court does not reverse all of [...]’s convictions, then it should vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.  **CONCLUSION**