Space Pawdyssey

Distribute within 300 feet of the school grounds, unlike N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. On 27 June 1994, as part of an appeal agreement, the defendant implemented a “confidential information cooperation agreement”. This contract provided, among other things, that the Somerset County Crown Had agreed to analyze the information provided [by the defendant]. Each recommendation is based on the nature and extent of the informant`s cooperation, as defined exclusively by the Somerset County Crown Prosecution Service. . . . The Somerset County Crown Will be the sole determinor [sic] for any breach/interpretation of this contract. The state argues that it did not violate the fundamental agreement by refusing to waive one of the mandatory probation conditions.

It is the state`s position that the plea agreement “only asked for the maximum prison sentence that the accused could receive, which was four years” and “the imposition of three-year probation evidence, as provided by the N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.” In addition, the State has agreed to inform the Correctional Court of any information concerning the accused`s cooperation with the public prosecutor`s office. According to the state, “that`s exactly what he did.” According to the State, the defendant did not cooperate with the state “in any way, form or form.” The State also argues that this lack of cooperation was “admitted” by the accused and defence counsel. On the basis of these facts, the State argued that there was no reason for it to waive the mandatory minimum conditional period of ineligibility provided by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12. The State also argues that, on the basis of a “sterile and sterile recording”, the Appeal Division should not be able to question its decision as to what is “cooperation” for the purposes of waiver. The State argues, however, that we agree with the respondent that the appeal agreement should have defined “cooperation.” The plea form and the plea transcript reveal that the accused was informed that the sentence recommended by the prosecutor was “4 years, 3 years without parole”. However, the prosecutor will announce cooperation with the convicted judge with regard to the criminal recommendation. Although the accused executed a “confidential county.” We assume that the issue of the conviction of the accused is again the subject of oral arguments and convictions. We ask the prosecutor and the court, in the exercise of their respective discretion, to focus particularly on the problem of the potential for inequality in the consideration of an acceptable plea and sentence. We quashed the verdict of the Appeal Division and, in accordance with that decision, subpoenaed the legal division following the trial. Unless the accused requests a discharge from the legal department within forty-five days of this decision, the four-year suspended sentence imposed by the legal service is reinstated.

A recommendation at the time of conviction cannot require a defendant to serve a minimum period of time longer than that provided for by the appeal agreement or agreement reached after the judgment. In addition, the plea or agreement after the verdict may specify the precise sentence if the accused cooperates to the satisfaction of the prosecutor or the prosecutor.