SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3860-19T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM K. LANE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted September 15, 2020 — Decided

Before Judges Haas and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Mercer County, Accusation No. 07-12-1157.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Olivia J. Moorhead, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Renee M. Robeson, Senior Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 21, 2020
2

A-3860-19T4

Defendant William Lane appeals from a June 19, 2020 order denying a

motion to amend his sentence and permit his release for medical reasons 

pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). We affirm. 

On April 18, 2008, defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated 

manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty-two years' incarceration subject to 

the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. He becomes parole eligible on

December 30, 2023. In 2012, defendant was transferred to a Massachusetts 

correctional facility, where he is currently held. 

Defendant filed the motion to amend his sentence seeking early release or 

suspension of the sentence due to the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing he suffers 

from asthma, pneumonia, hypertension, and chest pain, and that these medical 

conditions and his age place him at risk. Judge Robert W. Bingham, II, issued 

a written decision denying defendant's motion. The judge recounted defendant's 

admissions to the hospital and medical treatments between 2016 and 2019, and 

subsequent return to prison after each admission. The judge also considered the 

letters of support defendant offered from family, friends, and faculty and 

students from a Boston University prison education program, evidencing 

defendant's rehabilitation during his incarceration. 
3

A-3860-19T4

However, the judge denied the motion because defendant is serving a 

mandatory term of imprisonment, is parole ineligible, and 

a mandatory term of parole . . . ineligibility cannot be 

reduced or changed under the [Rule]. State v. Mendel,

212 N.J. Super. 110[, 113] (App. Div. 1986). The 

[Mendel] panel explained that the court can consider an

application under R[ule] 3:21-10(b) relative to a 

discretionary period of parole ineligibility, but "a

sentence cannot be changed or reduced under R[ule]

3:21-10(b) below the parole ineligibility term required 

by statute. R[ule] 3:21-10(b) was never intended to 

permit the change or reduction of a custodial sentence 

which is required by law." Mendel, 212 N.J. Super. at 

112-13.

Judge Bingham also found defendant did not satisfy the State v. Priester1

factors for release pursuant to the Rule because defendant was successfully 

treated and returned to the prison population on many occasions and "[t]hough 

he may have conditions that elevate his risk of COVID-19, there is no indication 

that he has any such symptoms of the infection or that the prison would be 

incapable of addressing them." Additionally, although defendant made strides 

toward rehabilitation, mitigating the risk to the public if defendant were 

released, the judge found "the nature and severity of [defendant's] crime . . . 

1

 99 N.J. 123 (1985).
4

A-3860-19T4

extremely serious. The severity of the sentence reflects the severity of the 

crime."

Defendant raises the following points on appeal:

POINT I: APPELLANT IS NOT BARRED FROM 

RELIEF UNDER RULE 3:21-10(B)(2) DUE TO 

PAROLE DISQUALIFIER AS IT DOES NOT 

REQUIRE A CHANGE OF SENTENCE.

POINT II: APPELLANT HAS MET THE LEGAL 

STANDARD FOR RELEASE UNDER STATE V. 

PRIESTER, HAVING SHOWN THE DELETERIOUS 

EFFECT INCARCERATION HAS HAD ON HIS

HEALTH, DUE TO HIS UNDERLYING MEDICAL 

CONDITIONS AND ONGOING COVID-19 

PANDEMIC, AND SEEKS A NEW HEARING.

A sentencing amendment under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) "must be applied 

prudently, sparingly, and cautiously." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135. Moreover, "[a] 

motion made pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) is committed to the sound 

discretion of the [trial] court." Ibid. 

Having considered defendant's arguments, we affirm for the reasons 

expressed in Judge Bingham's thorough and well-written decision. Defendant's 

statutory ineligibility for parole clearly barred his motion. Although the judge 

was not required to also address the Priester factors in light of the procedural 

bar, we discern no abuse of discretion by the judge finding defendant's 
5

A-3860-19T4

successful medical treatment during incarceration, the availability of such

medical care, and the severity of his crime, did not warrant early release.

Affirmed.