Sentencing

State v. Payne and the Limits of Compassionate Release

Published on: January 27, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Release-300x300 New Jersey’s Compassionate Release Act is supposed to do one thing well. It exists to ensure incarceration does not become a death sentence for someone who is seriously ill, medically vulnerable, or otherwise unable to be safely housed. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Celestine Payne is a reminder, though, that medical eligibility is not the end of the analysis. Even when a person meets the statute’s medical requirements and shows low public safety risk, release remains discretionary. The State can still defeat the motion if it proves extraordinary aggravating circumstances.

Payne is not a close call on facts. The opinion recounts a disturbing pattern of calculated violence tied to a broader scheme involving life-insurance fraud, manipulation of family and friends, and multiple acts of violence, including an attempted murder and two murders. The Court highlighted the planning, the use of people around her, and the brutality of what happened, including the allegation that, after one victim survived, Payne went to the hospital, posed as his mother, and signed a do-not-resuscitate order. The point was not to relitigate guilt. The point was to explain why the State argued this case fell into the narrow category of truly exceptional and rare conduct.

What made the decision legally important is the procedural posture. The trial court found Payne met the Act’s medical and public safety requirements, but still denied release based on what the Supreme Court previously recognized as an extraordinary aggravating factor. The trial court concluded the offense involved conduct that was particularly heinous, cruel, or depraved. The Appellate Division reversed, reasoning that the facts did not meaningfully exceed what courts often see in murder prosecutions. The Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the denial.

Immigration Consequences and Plea Advice: Clarifying Counsel’s Role in New Jersey

Published on: November 21, 2025 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Image-Law-300x300 In State v. Juan C. Hernandez-Peralta (decided July 22, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court answered a practical question that comes up all the time in criminal practice: how far does a defense lawyer have to go to investigate a client’s immigration status? The Court held that, on the facts of this case, sentencing counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for asking, “Are you a U.S. citizen?”, getting a clear “yes”, and relying on that answer, even though the client later turned out to be a noncitizen who faced deportation.

The underlying case started with a series of burglaries and a robbery in Lakewood in 2019. Hernandez-Peralta pled guilty to three counts of third-degree burglary and one count of second-degree robbery. At his plea hearing, he told the judge he was a U.S. citizen and said he was born in New York. On the standard New Jersey plea form, he also answered that he was a citizen. Despite that answer, his plea lawyer still went through the immigration questions and warned him that if he was not a citizen, his guilty plea could lead to removal from the United States and block him from legally re-entering.

The presentence report, however, told a slightly different story. It listed his place of birth as Mexico, noted that he came to New York as a young child. The report also left several fields blank, including “Alien Status” and “Citizenship.” At sentencing, a different public defender represented him. She had the presentence report, reviewed it with him, and asked him directly if he was a U.S. citizen. Once again, he said yes. She did not independently investigate his status, obtain immigration records, or give case-specific immigration advice. The negotiated sentence, Recovery Court probation with a backup NERA prison term, was imposed.

Graves Act Parole Stipulations and 2C:39-5(j)

Published on: November 7, 2025 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Image-1-300x300 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.

Criminal Sentencing Considerations: State v. Cynthia Rivera

Published on: February 18, 2022 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Sentencing Courts must carefully consider all aggravating and mitigating factors.

Following a criminal defendant’s conviction or guilty plea, a judge decides the appropriate punishment at sentencing. A sentence may include incarceration, probation, fines, restitution, community service and participation in rehabilitation programs. However, there may be instances where a judge is able to enhance or reduce a sentence based upon factors specific to the defendant and the crime committed.

Factors that indicate higher culpability, and may result in a harsher sentence, are known as “aggravating” factors. Examples of aggravating factors are: previous convictions, attempts to conceal or dispose of evidence, use of a weapon, targeting vulnerable victims, etc.

Sentencing Beyond a Jury’s Verdict

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

jersey-city-criminal-sentencing-judge-1 In New Jersey, a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the State Constitution. The principles of fairness and justice are encompassed in the roles assigned to the judge and the jury. The jury, otherwise known as the “finder of fact,” is tasked with determining what happened in a specific case and how those facts are relevant to the legal proceeding. The judge, otherwise known as the “trier of law”, is tasked with making legal rulings and ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to specific guidelines.

However, there are instances in which courtroom actors confuse the role they must play.

In State v. Melvin and State v. Padden-Battle , the Defendants were sentenced by the same judge who overlooked a jury’s acquittal and made decisions based on their own “fact-finding”.