SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0533-20

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CESAR G. LEMUS, a/k/a

CESAR GARCIA-LEMUS,

CESAR GARCIALEMUS,

CESAR GARCIA, CESAR

LEMUS and CESAR GARCIA

LEMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted June 21, 2022 – Decided July 7, 2022

Before Judges Whipple and Vernoia.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Indictment No. 19-11-0741.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Daniel S. Rockoff, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0533-20

William A. Daniel, Union County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Joseph M. Nielsen, Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Cesar Lemus appeals from an October 9, 2020 judgment of 

conviction after a plea of guilty to second-degree possession of a handgun 

without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1). He asks us to reverse the court's 

denial of his motion to overrule the State's rejection of his petition for a Graves 

Act waiver pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, "which embodies the so called 

'escape valve' to the mandatory sentence requirements otherwise embodied in 

the Graves Act," N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). State v. Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. 137,

139 (App. Div. 1991). We affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Regina 

Caulfield's well-reasoned eighteen-page written decision.

Defendant raises one issue on appeal:

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE 

ARBITRARY AND DISPARATE DENIAL OF 

DEFENDANT'S N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2 APPLICATION 

FOR A WAIVER OF A 3.5-YEAR MINIMUM 

PRISON SENTENCE. 

 On November 19, 2019, defendant was charged with possessing a revolver 

without a permit for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) and N.J.S.A. 

2C:39-4(a)(1). Defendant grew up in Honduras, where, he says, as a child, the 
3

A-0533-20

gangs kidnapped him, threatened and tortured him, and cut off his finger. He 

fled Honduras at age fifteen and made the dangerous journey to the United States 

as an unaccompanied minor. Defendant was diagnosed in 2018 with posttraumatic stress disorder. 

 On August 17, 2019, when defendant was nineteen years old, he had a 

verbal dispute with a man outside of a laundromat in Elizabeth. Defendant 

displayed a handgun, asked whether the man had a problem, and then walked 

away. Defendant later said in his recorded statement that he believed the man 

was in a gang. The man called the police. One officer attempted to block 

defendant's path in an unmarked car, and another chased defendant on foot.

Officers yelled at him to stop. During the chase, defendant reached into his 

waistband and dropped a weapon. One of the officers fired a shot at defendant 

but missed. Defendant was arrested. The discarded weapon was loaded.

Defendant later gave a recorded statement in which he said that a friend was 

going to teach him to fire it in a park. 

 After being charged, defendant asked the Union County Prosecutor for a 

Graves waiver, which was denied. On March 31, 2020, the prosecutor provided 

a written explanation setting forth the reasons for the denial. Defendant sought 

reconsideration of the denial and provided additional mitigating information to 
4

A-0533-20

the prosecutor. On April 9, 2020, the prosecutor denied defendant's request for 

reconsideration after reviewing the supplemental information. 

Defendant filed an Alvarez1 motion to appeal the denial of his request for 

a Graves waiver. In support of his motion, defendant cited to six additional 

Union County cases where a Graves waiver was granted in an attempt to 

illustrate that the State treated other similarly situated defendants differently in 

granting their waivers. Further, defendant argued the State failed to properly 

consider all relevant mitigating information. 

On July 22, 2020, Judge Caulfield issued a written decision and order 

denying defendant's motion. Defendant subsequently pled guilty and the court 

sentenced defendant to a five-year prison term with a three-and-a-half-year 

parole disqualifier pursuant to the Graves Act. This appeal followed.

The Graves Act requires a mandatory term of imprisonment for individuals

convicted of various firearm-related crimes. It specifically requires that "[t]he term

of imprisonment shall include the imposition of a minimum term" which "shall be

fixed at one-half of the sentence imposed by the court or [forty-two] months,

whichever is greater. . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). The Graves Act, however, contains

1 Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. at 139.
5

A-0533-20

an "'escape valve' to the mandatory sentence requirements . . . ." Alvarez, 246 N.J.

Super. at 139.

This "escape valve" provides:

On a motion by the prosecutor made to the 

[A]ssignment [J]udge that the imposition of a 

mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under [the 

Graves Act] for a defendant who has not previously 

been convicted of an offense under [the Graves Act], 

. . . does not serve the interests of justice, the 

[A]ssignment [J]udge shall place the defendant on 

probation . . . or reduce to one year the mandatory 

minimum term of imprisonment during which the 

defendant will be ineligible for parole. The sentencing 

court may also refer a case of a defendant who has not 

previously been convicted of an offense under that 

subsection to the [A]ssignment [J]udge, with the 

approval of the prosecutor, if the sentencing court 

believes that the interests of justice would not be served 

by the imposition of a mandatory minimum term.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2.]

"[W]ritten guidelines exist to channel prosecutorial discretion" in evaluating

waiver applications. State v. Benjamin, 228 N.J. 358, 372 (2017). The guidelines,

outlined in the Office of the Attorney General, Directive to Ensure Uniform

Enforcement of the "Graves Act" (Oct. 23, 2008, as corrected Nov. 25, 2008),

instruct prosecutors "contemplating a waiver to 'consider all relevant circumstances

concerning the offense conduct and the offender,' such as applicable aggravating and

mitigating circumstances under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1. . . ." Id. at 369. Should the
6

A-0533-20

prosecutor decide not to approve the waiver, a defendant may move "before the

[A]ssignment [J]udge or designated judge . . . for a . . . hearing as to whether the

prosecutor's rejection or refusal is grossly arbitrary or capricious or a patent abuse

of discretion." Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. at 147 (quoting State v. Cengiz, 241 N.J.

Super. 482, 497-98 (App. Div. 1990)). A defendant "must make a showing of

arbitrariness constituting an unconstitutional discrimination or denial of equal

protection constituting a 'manifest injustice,'" and the Assignment Judge must

determine if a hearing is warranted "in the interests of justice." Id. at 148-49 (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the trial court properly found that the State acted reasonably in 

denying defendant a Graves waiver. Defendant was in possession of a loaded 

handgun, which by his own admission he was planning on shooting off that night 

in a public park. Defendant was intoxicated at the time he possessed the firearm 

and displayed the weapon to the man at the laundromat in a threatening manner. 

Defendant brandished the handgun while he fled from police and which caused 

an officer to fire in self-defense. 

The trial judge thoroughly reviewed the reasons for denial given by the 

prosecutor and found the decision was sound and a proper exercise of 

prosecutorial discretion. In reviewing the six other Union County cases where 
7

A-0533-20

Graves waivers were granted to highlight alleged disparity in an attempt to 

illustrate an abuse of discretion on behalf of the State, the trial court found

defendant's case was unlike the others. Specifically, after a review of 

defendant's case, the court determined that the flashing of a gun to a civilian, the 

subsequent pursuit by police, and defendant's discarding of a loaded firearm in 

a residential neighborhood made this case unlike any other cited by defendant. 

To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, we 

find they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. See

R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.