State v. Louis
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Per curiam
We granted certification, 114 N.J. 471 (1989), to consider whether the Appellate Division had exceeded its proper scope of review in revising the sentence under appeal here. In State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 365 (1984), we assured trial courts that if they followed the sentencing guidelines of our Code of Criminal Justice, they need not fear “second-guessing” of their sentencing decisions by appellate courts. We have repeatedly reaffirmed our commitment to this principle of sentencing. See State v. O’Donnell, 117 N.J. 210, 220 (1989) (Appellate Division “should not have substituted its judgment…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. RothSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- State v. YarboughSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- State v. O'DONNELLSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- State v. ZolaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- State v. HodgeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. LawlessSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
- State v. CareySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- State v. RoachSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- State v. La FranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.