In the case of the State of New Jersey v. Bell, the defendant, convicted of shoplifting, and having had prior convictions for shoplifting, was sentenced by the trial judge to 180 days in jail, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C: 20-11, which provides in part,
"Additionally, notwithstanding the term of imprisonment provided in N.J.S.2C:43-6 or 2C:43-8, any person convicted of a shoplifting offense shall be sentenced to perform community service as follows: for a first offense, at least ten days of community service; for a second offense, at least 15 days of community service; and for a third or subsequent offense, a maximum of 25 days of community service and any person convicted of a third or subsequent shoplifting offense shall serve a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 90 days."
A New Jersey Appellate Division panel in an unpublished decision ruled the defendant's sentence be reconsidered at the trial level. The statute mandates a minimum of 90 days in jail for conviction of a fourth offense and because the defendant met that standard, the appeals panel would have found no problem had the trial judge merely imposed that statutory minimum jail sentence. The appeals panel had no necessary problem with the imposition of the 180 day jail sentence as such. The panel's problem with the imposition of the sentence concerned the fact that the trial judge, in going beyond the statutorily mandated minimum sentence, made no inquiry into whether the greater sentence would "entail excessive hardship". Moreover, even had the judge made such an inquiry, there was nothing in the record stating why the greater sentence was justified in light of any excessive hardship.
The defendant stated that the imposition of the extra ninety days of her jail sentence would represent an excessive hardship with respect to her care of her infant twin children. The matter of the defendant's jail sentence will now go back to the trial court level for reconsideration. It is important to note that the same 180 day sentence may be the result of the impending reconsideration.
It may be, for example, that the trial judge had legally sound reasons for the imposition of the harsher sentence, and had simply failed to include them, or any description of the deliberative process that led to them, in the trial record.
