RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2245-16T7

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 

HASHEEN SANDERS,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

Submitted March 7, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Vernoia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

Complaint No. W-2017-000013-0712.

Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Kayla 

Elizabeth Rowe, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Tamar Lerer, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM 

We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal the trial 

court's January 31, 2017 order denying the State's motion for 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

April 12, 2017
2 A-2245-16T7

the detention of defendant and imposing conditions for 

defendant's pretrial release. We affirm.

Defendant was charged in four complaint-warrants in 

connection with four separate incidents that allegedly occurred 

on January 11, 2017. He was charged in three of the incidents 

with third-degree attempted burglary,1 N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1) and 

N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1). In the fourth incident, defendant was 

charged with second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1), and 

third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a). 

The State moved for defendant's pretrial detention. At a 

January 31, 2017 hearing, the State presented the complaintwarrants, affidavits of probable cause, preliminary law 

enforcement incident reports (PLEIR), and the public safety 

assessment (PSA).2

 

1 The parties and court incorrectly identified the attempted 

burglary charges as fourth-degree offenses. An attempted 

burglary is of the same degree as the completed crime of 

burglary. N.J.S.A. 2C:5-4. Under our criminal code, burglaries 

are graded as either second-degree or third-degree offenses. 

N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(b). The complaint-warrants alleging the 

attempted burglaries here do not include any facts supporting a 

charge of attempted second-degree burglary. See N.J.S.A. 2C:18-

2(b)(1) and (2). There is no basis in the record to conclude the 

misconception concerning the degrees of the three attempted 

burglaries affected the court's release decision. 

2 The nature of these documents and their application in matters 

governed by the new Bail Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26,

which became effective January 1, 2017, are more fully discussed 

(continued)
3 A-2245-16T7

The judge determined the affidavits established probable 

cause for each of the charges. The affidavits showed defendant's 

fingerprints were found at the scenes of two of the attempted 

burglaries, and a boot print found at the scene of the third 

attempted burglary matched the boots worn by defendant at the 

time of his arrest. Defendant admitted to the commission of two 

of the attempted burglaries, including the one where the boot 

print was found. Defendant was also identified by the victim of 

the alleged second-degree burglary, and defendant confessed to 

committing that burglary as well.

The PSA assigned a score of three for risk of failure to 

appear, four for risk of criminal activity, and a flag for an 

elevated risk of violence. The PSA included a recommendation 

against defendant's pretrial release. Defendant did not dispute 

there was probable cause for the charges and acknowledged his 

prior criminal record, but argued it had been five years since 

his last criminal conviction and that detention was not 

necessary to either protect the public or ensure his appearance 

at future court proceedings.

 

(continued)

elsewhere. See State v. Robinson, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div.),

leave to appeal granted, __ N.J. __ (2017); State v. Ingram, __ 

N.J. Super. __ (App. Div.), leave to appeal granted, __ N.J. __ 

(2017); State v. C.W., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2017).
4 A-2245-16T7

The judge noted that the State had "a very strong case" and 

explained he was required to "consider a number of different 

factors in determining whether or not to detain" defendant. The 

court considered defendant's age and criminal history, including 

his prior convictions for eluding, multiple aggravated assaults,

possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and a number of 

prior failures to appear for court proceedings. The judge 

acknowledged defendant was previously sentenced on three 

occasions to lengthy prison terms. The judge also considered the 

PSA's scoring of the risk factors and its recommendation against 

release, which the judge recognized could be utilized to 

overcome the presumption of release to which defendant was 

otherwise entitled.

The judge found probable cause and concluded that the facts 

presented a detention decision that "could go either way," but 

was satisfied there were accommodations and conditions that 

would ensure defendant's appearance in court and protect the 

community.3

 

3 We reject the State's contention that the judge's rhetorical 

statement, "I don't know why but I'm inclined . . . to . . . 

keep you under [twenty-four]-hour house arrest," shows the judge 

did not have a reasoned basis for his release decision. The 

record shows the court reviewed the seriousness of the charges,

defendant's prior criminal history, and the PSA and made a 

reasoned determination there were conditions short of detention 

(continued)
5 A-2245-16T7

The judge conditioned defendant's release upon his residing with 

his niece with twenty-four hour home detention and electronic 

monitoring, weekly telephone reporting to pre-trial services,

and bi-weekly personal reporting to pre-trial services. 

Defendant was further ordered to avoid all contact with the 

victims and to report any change of address to pre-trial 

services.

Following the State's filing of the motion for leave to 

appeal the court's order, the judge issued a letter opinion 

amplifying the reasons for his decision in accordance with Rule

2:5-6(c). The judge explained that he "placed [d]efendant on the 

strictest conditions possible, short of detention," that the 

electronic monitoring "will pinpoint and provide satellite 

coordinates of [defendant's] exact location at all times," and 

that "pretrial services will be able to confirm [defendant's] 

location at all times." The judge determined the conditions 

imposed ensure defendant's appearance at all court proceedings,

the protection of the community, and that defendant will not 

obstruct the criminal justice process. 

 

(continued)

that ensured defendant's appearances for court appearances and 

protected the public. 
6 A-2245-16T7

Based on our review of the record, we do not discern any 

abuse of the judge's considerable discretion, see C.W., supra,

slip op. at 33-40, by releasing defendant upon the strict and 

comprehensive conditions set forth in the court's order, and

determining the State failed to satisfy its "heavy burden [of 

establishing] the need for detention by 'clear and convincing 

evidence.'" Id. at 38 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:162-18(a)(1)).

Affirmed.