## Facts

- Catrina Lark was murdered in her Atlantic City apartment.
- Abdul A. Abdullah was indicted for murder, second-degree burglary, and multiple weapons offenses.
- A jury convicted Abdullah of murder, second-degree burglary, and weapons offenses.
- At sentencing, the judge found multiple statutory aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
- The court imposed life imprisonment for murder with a 30-year parole disqualifier.
- The court also imposed a consecutive 10-year term for second-degree burglary with a 5-year parole disqualifier.
- On appeal, Abdullah argued the Sixth Amendment required jury factfinding for aspects of his sentence under the Apprendi/Blakely line of cases.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits a judge from imposing a life sentence for murder within the statutory range based on judicial weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors.
2. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find facts supporting a parole disqualifier imposed under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b).
3. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine facts supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences.
4. Whether a second-degree burglary sentence imposed above the former presumptive term must be vacated and remanded for resentencing after elimination of presumptive terms.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the murder sentence, holding that a life term for murder imposed within the statutory range does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
- The court held that judicially imposed parole disqualifiers under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b) do not violate the Sixth Amendment.
- The court held that judicial discretion to impose consecutive sentences for multiple convictions does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
- The court reversed the 10-year burglary sentence imposed above the former presumptive term and remanded for resentencing under the post-presumptive framework.
- The murder conviction and life sentence with a 30-year parole bar were affirmed; the burglary sentence was vacated for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment bars judicial factfinding only when it authorizes punishment beyond the maximum permitted by the jury verdict (or admitted facts); judicial selection of a sentence within the statutory range is permissible.
- After removal of presumptive terms, the “maximum” for Sixth Amendment purposes is the upper end of the statutory sentencing range for the offense of conviction.
- A life sentence for murder that falls within the statutory range is authorized by the jury’s verdict and does not require additional jury findings.
- A parole disqualifier imposed under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b), based on judicial weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, is treated as part of the sentence authorized within the legislatively defined range and does not require jury factfinding.
- The decision to impose concurrent or consecutive terms is a traditional judicial function; it structures multiple sentences that are each independently authorized by their respective convictions.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Sixth Amendment challenges to a life term for murder, parole disqualifiers, and consecutive sentencing, but vacated and remanded the above-presumptive burglary sentence for resentencing consistent with the elimination of presumptive-term ceilings.


State v. Abdullah, 184 N.J. 497, 878 A.2d 746 (N.J. 2005)