Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HORACE KNIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1976-12-17
Citations: 72 N.J. 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HORACE KNIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 193–200

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HORACE KNIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued October 26, 1976
-Decided December 17, 1976.
Ms. Cynthia M. Jacob, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. William E. Norris, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Ms. Marianne Espinosa, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Richard J. EngeThardt, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This appeal, brought here by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division, R. 2:2-1 (a) (2), raises only the question of the propriety of sentences of the defendant to State Prison on narcotics distribution and possession charges for aggregate terms of 5-7 years. The dispute in the Appellate Division was as to whether defendant, a 22 year old heroin addict never previously incarcerated, should more appropriately have been sentenced to the Youth Correctional Institution Complex (Yardville), for which he was eligible, than to State Prison.
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division for the reasons set forth in its opinion, 146 N. J. Super. 231, A. 2d (1975), supplemented by the following comments.
There is a wide area of discretion in the sentencing judge, and the sentence in the present instance might well, for the reasons set forth in Judge Botter's dissenting opinion, have been appropriately made to Yardville. But sentence review in.this State is by no means a dé novo exercise of the sentencing function by the appellate court. Only where the sentence is "manifestly excessive" should it be revised on appeal. State v. Bess, 53 N. J. 10, 18 (1968). By the same token, the choice of institution of incarceration by the sentencing judge should not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly inappropriate or unsuited to the corrective purposes indicated by an appraisal of both the offender and the offense. See State v. Spinks, 66 N. J. 568, 575-576 (1975); State v. McBride, 66 N. J. 577, 580 (1975). The seriousness of two of the instant offenses — distribution of heroin — of itself would repel any notion of manifest inappropriateness of a sentence to State Prison therefor.
We note that although sentencing here took place prior to our decision in State v. McBride, supra, the sentencing judge in his written reasons for sentence met the spirit of the direction therein that all sentences of youthful offenders eligible for Yardville be to that institution or that the reasons for sentencing indicate why not, and why the sentence to State Prison is deemed more appropriate. 66 N. J. at 580-581.
Judgment affirmed.