In a case titled, State v. Briggs, an Appellate Division panel analyzed a plea agreement requiring a 20 year custodial term and a mandatory minimum term under New Jersey’s No Early Release Act.  The Agreement also included a specific term that prohibited the defendant’s attorney from arguing on sentencing day that the defendant was entitled to a term of imprisonment that was less than 20 years.  The question before the court related to the part of the plea agreement that prohibited the defendant’s attorney from arguing for a sentence that was less than the negotiated plea agreement. 

The court began its analysis by noting that the accused is entitled to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution.  It next referred to cases that determined that a prohibition against summation in non-jury trial violated this constitutionally protected principle.  The court than concluded that the ability of a defendant’s lawyer to provide aggressive arguments at sentencing was no less important than the opportunity to give aggressive summations in a non-jury case.

In closing, the court noted that the prohibition against arguing for a less serious sentence could have prevented defense counsel from arguing that the defendant was a candidate for a downgrade sentence (i.e. second degree offense to third degree offense), which is an option that exists  under a provision of New Jersey’s Criminal Code where the trial court is “clearly convinced that the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating factors” and where the result was required by the “interests of justice.”