State of New Jersey v. Charles S. Thomas

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that double jeopardy did not bar resentencing because the defendant had appealed and the new sentence did not exceed the original sentence. The court further held that, when seeking a discretionary extended term for multiple offenses, the prosecutor's selection of the offense is entitled to weight but is not dispositive, and the trial court must explain any departure. The court reversed and remanded for the trial judge to explain why the extended term was not applied to the eluding conviction.

Holdings

1. Double jeopardy did not bar resentencing because defendant had appealed his sentence and the new sentence was not greater than the sentence originally imposed.
2. The sentencing judge must give weight to the prosecutor's determination of which offense should receive a discretionary extended term, but the prosecutor's selection is not dispositive. If the judge selects a different offense, the judge must state the reasons on the record.
3. The Appellate Division improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge by exercising original jurisdiction to revise the sentence. When a sentencing court's exercise of discretion is clearly mistaken, the preferred remedy is remand to the trial court for resentencing or explanation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether double jeopardy barred resentencing after defendant had begun serving his original sentence.
2. Whether the prosecutor's identification of the offense for extended-term treatment controlled the sentencing court's selection of the offense.
3. Whether the Appellate Division properly exercised original jurisdiction to select the offense receiving the extended term rather than remanding to the trial court.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded