# State v. Parolin

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · March 27, 2002 · 171 N.J. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634789

## Case

- **Full name:** State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian Parolin, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** March 27, 2002
- **Citations:** 171 N.J. 223; 793 A.2d 638; 2002 N.J. LEXIS 352
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Long
- **Judges:** Coleman, Long
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634789

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- noting “the presumption that criminal legislation is to have prospective effect”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634789. Public record. Not legal advice.