Opinion ID: 1935115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Propriety of Consecutive Sentencing on Murder Convictions

Text: Defendant claims that the court's imposition of a consecutive sentence of life imprisonment with a thirty-year mandatory minimum for the murder of John Bell violated the sentencing guidelines that we set forth in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44, 498 A. 2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193, 89 L.Ed. 2d 308 (1986). (Subsequent to defendant's sentence, the Legislature effectively eliminated the bar to consecutive sentences imposed by Yarbough. See L. 1993, c. 223.) Given our reversal of defendant's death sentence for the murder of Alice Skov, and defendant's concession that the trial court improperly merged defendant's two convictions of first-degree armed robbery and his conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon with his felony-murder convictions, we remand the entire matter for resentencing. However, we perceive no bar to the imposition of consecutive sentences for the murders of Alice Skov and John Bell based on the principles of consecutive sentencing set forth in Yarbough, supra . See Moore (Marie), supra, 113 N.J. at 308-10, 550 A. 2d 117 (concluding that sentences consecutive to death sentence totalling 224 years with 87 1/2-year mandatory minimum did not violate Yarbough, but noting that on remand for resentencing on murder conviction, more realistic sentence would be one that ensured that [defendant] would be ineligible for parole for the remainder of her life). Defendant's assertion that such sentencing is improper because the murders and robberies were part of one criminal transaction has no support in our cases. Indeed, the case on which defendant relies, State v. Rogers, 124 N.J. 113, 590 A. 2d 234 (1991), supports the opposite conclusion. The shootings in Rogers were virtually simultaneous. During a tavern robbery, patrons were ordered to lie on the floor. When one of the patrons, an off-duty sheriff's officer, made a move toward his gun, the two perpetrators in the bar each opened fire, hitting that officer and another patron. Both the patrons died. Id. at 115, 590 A. 2d 234. The defendant, who was not in the bar but who had supplied the guns and driven the getaway car, received two consecutive thirty-year mandatory terms on two convictions for felony murder. Id. at 115-16, 590 A. 2d 234. The Appellate Division determined that the consecutive sentences were contrary to Yarbough, and suggested that on remand the court consider imposition of sentences that were part concurrent and part consecutive. Id. at 116, 590 A. 2d 234 (quoting State v. Rogers, 236 N.J. Super. 378, 381, 565 A. 2d 1128 (1989)). We disagreed with both those conclusions. We first determined that the Code of Criminal Justice (Code) did not permit partially-concurrent and -consecutive sentences. Id. at 116-19, 590 A. 2d 234. Furthermore, we disagree[d] with the Appellate Division's determination that `[t]he sentence imposed, two consecutive 30-year terms of imprisonment without parole, is contrary to [ Yarbough ] guideline 5,' which suggested a shorter second term when consecutive terms were imposed for the same offense. Id. at 119, 590 A. 2d 234 (quoting 236 N.J. Super. at 382, 565 A. 2d 1128). We noted that that guideline could not apply in cases in which sentences were mandated by the Code. Id. at 119-20, 590 A. 2d 234. That result clearly assumes that consecutive sentencing for multiple murders that occur in close sequence is not improper.