## Facts

- Christopher Brimage was indicted in Somerset County under New Jersey’s Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987 (CDRA) for third-degree drug offenses, including possession with intent to distribute and a school-zone offense.
- Under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12, prosecutors may negotiate plea agreements that waive otherwise mandatory minimum sentences for CDRA offenses.
- The Somerset County Prosecutor offered a plea recommending the presumptive four-year term for a third-degree offense and applying a mandatory three-year parole disqualifier for the school-zone count.
- Brimage accepted the plea and pleaded guilty, while reserving the right to challenge the validity of the plea-bargaining guidelines and the applicability of the mandatory parole disqualifier to him.
- Brimage was sentenced consistent with the recommendation: four years’ imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility.
- On appeal, Brimage argued the Attorney General’s plea-bargaining guidelines permitted county-by-county plea policies that produced unconstitutional and unjustified inter-county sentencing disparities and failed to constrain prosecutorial discretion.
- The case reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey to assess whether the guideline structure satisfied constitutional limits and the CDRA’s goal of statewide sentencing uniformity.

## Issues

1. Whether plea-bargaining guidelines implementing N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 adequately constrain prosecutorial discretion and permit meaningful judicial review consistent with separation of powers.
2. Whether allowing counties to adopt more stringent standard plea policies than statewide minimum offers produces unjustifiable inter-county sentencing disparities inconsistent with the CDRA’s uniformity objectives.
3. What remedial requirements govern the validity and restructuring of CDRA plea guidelines and their application on remand to defendants sentenced under the prior scheme.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the existing Attorney General guideline structure was inadequate to ensure uniformity and had resulted in unjustifiable inter-county disparity in CDRA plea offers and sentences.
- The Court invalidated the then-existing structure to the extent it permitted materially divergent county standard plea policies that undermined statewide uniformity.
- The Court required the Attorney General to promulgate more uniform, statewide binding guidelines that substantially reduce inter-county disparity while preserving constrained prosecutorial discretion.
- The Court reaffirmed that prosecutors must follow written guidelines and place reasons for waiver or non-waiver of mandatory minimum terms on the record to allow judicial review for arbitrary or capricious action.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s directive and the revised statewide guideline framework.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial discretion to waive mandatory minimum sentencing consequences under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 is constitutionally permissible only if structured by written standards and subject to judicial review for arbitrary and capricious action.
- Separation of powers limits prosecutorial control over sentencing outcomes; guideline-based transparency and on-the-record explanations are necessary to prevent effectively unreviewable executive determination of sentencing consequences.
- CDRA sentencing policy requires substantial statewide uniformity; geographic differences in standard plea policies that yield materially different sentencing exposure for similarly situated defendants are impermissible absent a statutory justification.
- Statewide plea guidelines must meaningfully constrain county-level variance, provide clearer uniform criteria for waivers, and maintain record-making obligations to facilitate judicial oversight.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that county-variable drug-plea policies operating under the Attorney General’s prior guideline structure produced unjustified inter-county sentencing disparities and insufficiently constrained § 35-12 waiver discretion; it therefore required binding, more uniform statewide guidelines and remanded for proceedings consistent with that framework.


State v. Brimage, 706 A.2d 1096 (N.J. 1998)