State v. A.T.C.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. A.T.C.

198 A.3d 291, 236 N.J. 112

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 6, 2018

DocketC-330 September Term 2018; 081201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.3d 291 (State v. A.T.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. A.T.C., 198 A.3d 291, 236 N.J. 112 (N.J. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

A petition for certification of the judgment in A-004302-15 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited to defendant's facial challenge to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(D) as unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers doctrine. In addressing that question, the Court may consider whether the State - through the sentencing record and the Attorney General guidelines - sufficiently explained its use of discretion to permit effective judicial review as required in State v. Vasquez, 129 N.J. 189 (1992), such that A.T.C.'s sentence did not violate the separation of powers doctrine; and it is further

ORDERED that the appellant may electronically serve and file a supplemental brief on or before February 5, 2019, and respondent may electronically serve and file a supplemental brief forty-five (45) days after the filing of appellant's supplemental submission, or, if appellant declines to file such a submission, on or before March 22, 2019.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A petition for certification of the judgment in A-004302-15 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited to defendant's facial challenge to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(D) as unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers doctrine. In addressing that question, the Court may consider whether the State - through the sentencing record and the Attorney General guidelines - sufficiently explained its use of discretion to permit effective judicial review as required in State v. Vasquez, 129 N.J. 189 (1992), such that A.T.C.'s sentence did not violate the separation of powers doctrine; and it is further

ORDERED that the appellant may electronically serve and file a supplemental brief on or before February 5, 2019, and respondent may electronically serve and file a supplemental brief forty-five (45) days after the filing of appellant's supplemental submission, or, if appellant declines to file such a submission, on or before March 22, 2019.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.3d 291, 236 N.J. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-atc-nj-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack