holding that amendments to the No Early Release Act (NERA) removing the offense for which defendant was convicted did not apply retroactively when the new law became "effective immediately"
How later courts described this case
- holding that amendments to the No Early Release Act (NERA) removing the offense for which defendant was convicted did not apply retroactively when the new law became "effective immediately"
- NERA "was changed in response to the Appellate Division decisions in" Manzie, Mosley, and Thomas
- noting “the presumption that criminal legislation is to have prospective effect”
- affording prospective application only to an amendment to the No Early Release Act, which took effect immediately
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LONG, J.,
dissenting.
NERA is meant to apply only to the “most violent” first- and second-degree offenders in our society. State v. Thomas, 166 N.J. 560, 570 , 767 A.2d 459 (2001). Brian Parolin is simply not such a person. The facts he supplied at his plea hearing clearly warrant punishment but fall far short of establishing him as a member of the class of offenders NERA was enacted to harness. That he was never intended to fall within the ambit of NERA is underscored by the recent amendments to the statute that exclude from its purview the only qualifying crime to which Parolin pled guilty, second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7 .2d. That clarification, in my view, sheds light on the original meaning of NERA and should inform our assessment of this case. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Justice ZAZZALI joins in this dissent.
For reversal and remand — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN, and LaVECCHIA — 4.
For affirmance — Justices LONG and ZAZZALI — 2.