cdTOCtest

permitted exception to Yarbough rule. The killings,
although related in defendant’s mind, were predominantly
independent of each other. Each was committed at a
different time on successive victims in separate
circumstances. State v. List, 270 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div.
1993).

Consecutive sentences were warranted for attempted
escape and aggravated assault on a corrections officer
because the public interest in deterring violent assaults
upon correctional officers is sufficiently important and
separate from the public interest in preventing prison
escapes. State v. Espino, 264 N.J. Super. 62, 75 (App. Div.
1993).

Consecutive sentences for armed robbery and
kidnapping did not offend Yarbough in that crimes were
independent of each other as they involved separate
elements. State v. Orlando, 269 N.J. Super. 116, 140 (App.
Div.), certif. denied 136 N.J. 30 (1994).

Imposition of consecutive sentences was not an abuse
of discretion where sexual offenses committed by
defendant took place at different times and involved
multiple victims. State v. J.G., 261 N.J. Super. 409, 426-
427 (App. Div.), certif. denied 133 N.J. 436 (1993).

Consecutive sentences for two counts of murder do
not violate Yarbough guideline 5. State v. Rogers, 124 N.J.
at 119 (1991).

Consecutive sentences for felony murder and
possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose were
justified by the fact that weapons conviction resulted from
defendant’s threats and gestures to witness after victim was
shot. State v. Boyer, 221 N.J. Super. 387, 406 (App. Div.
1987), certif. denied 110 N.J. 299 (1988).

D. Yarbough Cap

In Yarbough, the Supreme Court established a “cap”
for multiple offenses. This “cap” imposed an overall outer
limit on consecutive sentences for multiple offenses - not to
exceed the sum of the longest terms (including an extended
term, if eligible) that could be imposed for the two most
serious offenses. Id.

On August 5, 1993, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A.
2C:44-5a to provide that “there shall be no overall outer
limit on the cumulation of consecutive sentences for
multiple offenses.” P.L. 1993, c. 223. This amendment
appears to eliminate the Yarbough cap. This amendment
applies only to offenses committed after August 5, 1993.

Yarbough “cap” on maximum sentence may be

overcome in exceptional circumstances. State v. Moore,

113 N.J. 239, 309-310 (1988); State v. Lewis, 223 N.J.

Super. 145, 153-154 (App. Div.), certif. denied 111 N.J.

584 (1988); State v. Cooper, 211 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.

1986); State v. Bryant, 217 N.J. Super. 72, 85 (App. Div.

1987), certif. denied 108 N.J. 202 (1987), cert. denied 484

U.S. 978 (1987); State v. Day, 216 N.J. Super. 33 (App.

Div.), certif. denied 107 N.J. 640 (1987).

For example, in State v. Lewis, 223 N.J. Super. at 153-

154, the Appellate Division found that the consecutive

sentences imposed on defendant, which were greater than

the sum of longest terms allowable for two most serious

offenses, did not violate Yarbough, in light of the fact that

seven victims were injured by defendant, including one

who died, and defendant received concurrent sentences on

five of the nine convictions.

Similarly, in State v. Cooper, 211 N.J. Super. at 25,

defendant’s sentence of life with 25 years of parole

ineligibility plus 86 years did not violate Yarbough since it

was the same as the sum of the longest terms (including an

extended term) which could have been imposed for

defendant’s two most serious offense, murder and armed

robbery.

Likewise, in State v. Day, 216 N.J. Super. 33 (App.

Div.), certif. denied 107 N.J. 640 (1987), the Appellate

Division upheld the imposition of consecutive terms

which slightly exceeded the maximum sentence for the two

offenses because: 1) no parole ineligibility terms were

imposed; thus the 49 year sentence resulted in less “real

time” than the Yarbough maximum of 40 years, with a

possibility of 20 years without parole; 2) the myriad of

additional convictions were concurrent, and 3) the weeks

of suffering endured by the victim (who was repeatedly

tortured by defendant), warranted the greater punishment.

IX. MANDATORY SENTENCES

A. Carjacking

Carjacking is a first degree offense with a sentencing

range between 10 and 30 years, with a mandatory

minimum sentence of 5 years parole ineligibility. State v.

Zadoyan, 290 N.J. Super. 280, 289-290 (App. Div. 1996);

State v. Henry, 323 N.J. Super. 157, 163 (App. Div. 1999).

While the other first degree offenses with longer

ordinary terms, aggravated manslaughter and kidnaping,

have been given presumptive terms of 20 years by the

Legislature, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f(1)(a), the offense of