Hudson County Criminal Lawyer Blog
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a major ruling that reshapes how courts and prosecutors must apply the state’s strict Graves Act sentencing rules for gun offenses. In State v. Zaire J. Cromedy (decided August 5, 2025), the Court unanimously held that a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j), which makes it a first-degree crime for someone with a prior No Early Release Act (NERA) conviction to unlawfully possess a weapon, is not automatically subject to the Graves Act’s mandatory parole-ineligibility period.
The case began when police arrested Zaire Cromedy in 2021 and found a handgun in his possession. Because Cromedy had a prior reckless manslaughter conviction covered by NERA, prosecutors charged him under subsection (j) of the unlawful possession statute. He pled guilty to first-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence with five years of parole ineligibility under the Graves Act. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that subsection (j) simply upgraded the degree of the underlying offense and therefore carried the same mandatory minimum sentence.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Noriega explained that subsection (j) creates a separate, standalone first-degree crime rather than a sentencing enhancement. The Court emphasized that the Graves Act explicitly lists which offenses trigger mandatory minimums—namely subsections (a), (b), (c), and (f) of the weapons statute—but not subsection (j). Because the Legislature added subsection (j) in 2013 yet chose not to include it in the Graves Act at that time, the Court concluded it would be improper to read that requirement into the law. In plain terms, the justices ruled that subsection (j) carries its own penalty range of ten to twenty years in prison, but without the automatic five-year no-parole term unless the sentencing judge imposes one based on the specific facts of the case.
The Court also took the opportunity to clarify an important legal distinction between grading provisions and sentencing enhancements. Grading provisions, such as subsection (j), define separate crimes that carry different degrees of punishment. Sentencing enhancements, like the Graves Act, impose additional penalties only after a conviction is entered. By conflating the two concepts, the lower courts had improperly expanded the Graves Act’s reach. The justices made clear that if the Legislature intended for subsection (j) to trigger the same mandatory minimums as the other firearm subsections, it could have amended the Graves Act to say so directly.
This decision has broad implications for criminal practice in New Jersey. For defendants, it means that those charged under subsection (j) will still face serious exposure—ten to twenty years in prison—but will not automatically lose eligibility for parole. Judges now have greater discretion to tailor sentences based on aggravating or mitigating factors, and defense attorneys will have stronger grounds for negotiation and potential resentencing in cases where a Graves Act term was wrongly imposed. For prosecutors, the ruling requires more careful charging decisions and may necessitate bifurcated trials to separately prove the prior NERA conviction without unfair prejudice.
Ultimately, State v. Cromedy restores sentencing discretion where it had been removed by assumption. The Court’s message to the Legislature was clear: if the lawmakers want the Graves Act to apply to subsection (j), they must say so explicitly. Until then, first-degree unlawful possession cases involving prior NERA convictions will no longer automatically trigger the Graves Act’s no-parole provisions. This is a significant development in New Jersey’s ongoing debate over firearm sentencing, fairness, and judicial authority—and one that every criminal defense lawyer in the state should pay close attention to.