New Jersey Appellate Division Decision on Persistent Offender Sentencing

New Jersey Appellate Division Decision Highlights Constitutional Issues
On December 19, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued a decision in State of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2024), in which it addressed significant constitutional challenges to the persistent offender statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). The Appellate Division affirmed Carlton’s convictions for aggravated sexual assault, burglary, and related offenses, but vacated his extended sentence, guided by the very recent United States Supreme Court decision in  Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).

Facts and Procedural History of This New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

Carlton was found guilty by a jury and convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, burglary, and other offenses stemming from a violent 2018 assault. The trial court sentenced Carlton to a 42-year term as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).

On appeal, Carlton challenged his sentence as a persistent offender and raised numerous other issues, including violations of his confrontation rights and procedural errors. After the initial appellate briefs were filed in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), holding that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a jury—not a sentencing judge—must decide whether prior convictions used to establish the basis for enhanced sentencing had been committed on separate occasions.

The State acknowledged that Erlinger applied retroactively to “pipeline” cases, such as this one, and thus, Carlton’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the judge rather than a jury decided that he was eligible for a persistent offender extended term. However, the Attorney General argued that the Appellate Division should apply the harmless constitutional error doctrine to affirm Carlton’s extended-term sentence.

Key Constitutional Issues Raised in the Decision

This New Jersey Appellate Division rejected the State’s argument, finding that they were unpersuaded that the harmless constitutional error doctrine could be applied in this case without eviscerating the Erlinger rule.

Therefore, the Appellate Division held that, in the absence of further guidance from the United States Supreme Court on permissible exemptions to the Erlinger rule, it was constrained to vacate Carlton’s persistent-offender extended-term sentence and remand to the Law Division with instructions on how to remedy the constitutional violation. This outcome marks a significant shift in how New Jersey courts approach persistent offender statutes.

Implications for the Persistent Offender Statute

This New Jersey Appellate Division decision highlighted critical changes necessitated by Erlinger. Moving forward, New Jersey courts must ensure that juries—not judges—decide whether prior offenses occurred on separate occasions and other factual elements required for enhanced sentencing.

While the State argued that the error in Carlton’s case was harmless, the court rejected this position. It underscored that constitutional protections cannot be bypassed, even in cases where evidence is seemingly overwhelming.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from This New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

This judicial opinion underscores the profound impact of Erlinger on New Jersey’s sentencing practices. Key takeaways include:

  • Persistent offender sentencing enhancements must comply with jury determination requirements under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
  • New Jersey courts must adapt to ensure constitutional safeguards in applying N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).
  • This decision affirms the importance of procedural fairness, even in cases involving significant evidence of guilt.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.