STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WALTER A. TORMASI (97-04-0234, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3534-17T4)
In 1996, when he was sixteen years old, defendant fatally shot his mother. Defendant was waived to the Law Division, tried as an adult, and convicted of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2), and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). Following merger, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment subject to a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility. The court has previously affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal and the denial of four petitions for post-conviction relief.
In May 2013, defendant moved to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3:21-10(b)(5). He argued that the sentencing court did not consider his youth and associated mitigating factors and that his life term deprived him of an opportunity to earn his release through demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. He further argued that it is likely that he will serve much longer than thirty years because the State Parole Board can repeatedly deny parole even if demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
Defendant further argued that mere eligibility for parole does not amount to a meaningful opportunity for release because the State Parole Board regularly contravenes the intentions and expectations of sentencing judges, thereby overruling sentencing decisions and usurping the power of sentencing judges. Defendant asserted that the State Parole Board's decision-making process is statutorily and constitutionally deficient because it is not required to consider the court-accepted brain science that children are constitutionally different and not deserving of the most severe punishments.
Defendant claimed he was entitled to resentencing under State v. Zuber, 227 N.J. 422 (2017), and Article I, Paragraph 12, of the New Jersey Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" Defendant will be eligible for parole in 2026 at age forty-seven.
The court affirms the denial of defendant's Rule 3:21-10(b)(5) motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that defendant's sentence is not illegal or the functional equivalent of life without parole. The court adheres to the holding in State v. Bass, 457 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2018), concluding that defendant is not entitled to resentencing under Zuber, even though the sentencing court had not considered the factors enumerated in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477-78 (2012), when it imposed the sentence. Any rehabilitative actions undertaken by defendant while incarcerated were matters for the State Parole Board to consider and did not render the sentence unconstitutional. The court thus rejected defendant's argument that he is entitled to resentencing under Zuber.
The court also holds that defendant's challenges to the parole process are not ripe since he is still serving the statutorily mandated thirty-year period of parole ineligibility and is not yet eligible for parole. The court notes that if defendant is eventually denied parole and receives a future eligibility term, he may appeal that decision and challenge the constitutionality of the statutory and regulatory framework governing parole at that time.
