The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a Monmouth County bank robber re-sentenced Tuesday, saying the two separate prison terms that would keep him behind bars until he is 102 years old are unfair.
The court found the judges who sentenced Edgar Torres to a combined 70 years behind bars did not give explicit explanation for running the sentences consecutively. They sent it back, “for meaningful review and re-sentencing utilizing the principles contained in this opinion.”
The unanimous decision, though, went beyond Torres’ predicament. The court said they took the case because the sentences’ length “concerned” them, and they said the state legislature and an existing sentencing commission needs to address the issue of consecutive sentences.
The New Jersey State Supreme Court ordered Edgar Torres, shown here in a 2021 prison photo, to be re-sentenced for the five bank robberies he committed in Monmouth County.
Torres was charged with three bank robberies – in Howell and Ocean townships – that occurred in 2010 and 2011. He then confessed to two more, in 2006 and 2009, in Farmingdale and Freehold. He committed them to fund his drug addiction, he said, and was indicted on 11 crimes for the five hold-ups. But Torres was tried separately, first for the latest three, for which he was sentenced to a total of 40 years.
Then he was tried and convicted of the first two crimes, for which he was sentenced to 30 years. The judge ruled that prison term would run consecutive to his 40-year term. Both had parole disqualifiers, meaning he’d have to serve 85% of each sentence before he could be considered for parole.
An appeals court found the trial judge also failed to carefully analyze the sentence and sent it back, but a new judge, the former one had retired, gave Torres the same sentence. That judge said it was called for under the state’s predominant case law on the matter, State v. Yarbough, a 1985 New Jersey Supreme Court case.
The Yarbough case has several factors judges use as guidelines on when to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences.
The Supreme Court justices in this case, in the oral arguments and in their decision, analyzed and reviewed – and challenged the attorneys who argued it – on how consecutive sentences are handed down in New Jersey.
The justices honed in on one Yarbough factor that previously addressed a limit on the number of consecutive sentences a defendant could receive. But state lawmakers rejected in 1993, and built into state law that there would not be an “overall outer limit on the cumulation of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses.”
The justice also discussed the age at which a person is sentenced, and whether that affects recidivism.
“A defendant’s age is doubtlessly among the information that courts should consider when calibrating a fair sentence,” the court wrote. “But age alone cannot drive the outcome. An older defendant who commits a serious crime, for example, cannot rely on age to avoid an otherwise appropriate sentence.”
“But age is a fact that can and should be in the matrix of information assessed by a sentencing [judge], even in the deliberation over whether consecutive sentences are a fair and appropriate punishment -- proportional for the individual being sentenced,” the court concluded.
Prosecutors, from the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office and state Attorney General’s Office, argued against reducing Torres sentence, saying this is not the case for change.
They said enough guidelines are in place for trial judges, and if they start to consider the age of a defendant when they are eventually released, it would transform sentencing decisions into generalizations based on age, and could unjustly lead to younger offenders receiving lighter sentences.
And, they reminded, Torres was a previously convicted of armed robbery before this case, and reducing his sentence now would give him a discount, essentially leading to one sentence for five bank robberies, or a prosecutor said, “four free bank robberies.”
The high court said in the decision they were taking steps to promote fairness, and signaled lawmakers and the New Jersey Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission to act.
“We note that the [commission] has completed some of its work, but more remains to be done. To the extent that some arguments advanced in this appeal are policy oriented, they are better addressed to the Legislature and the Sentencing Commission,” the high court wrote.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Scott Welfel, who argued the case, applauded the decision’s examination of age on consecutive sentences. “We are further encouraged that the Court referred the policy considerations implicated in this important case to the Legislature and Sentencing Commission,” he said.
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
Kevin Shea may be reached at kshea@njadvancemedia.com.
"term" - Google News
May 12, 2021 at 09:01PM
https://ift.tt/3blip63
Bank robber’s 70-year prison term unfair, N.J. high court says in calling for change - NJ.com
"term" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35lXs52
https://ift.tt/2L1ho5r
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Bank robber’s 70-year prison term unfair, N.J. high court says in calling for change - NJ.com"
Post a Comment