Appellate Court Orders Resentencing Of Inmate in Senior Week Sex Assault

TRENTON – On May 23, the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court ruled on a two-pronged appeal filed by now 22-year-old defendant Timothy C. Aman. He sought to have his guilty plea reversed and/or his sentence reduced regarding his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a male acquaintance June 9, 2013. 
According to court documents, on that date, Aman and seven other persons traveled to Wildwood to attend “senior week.” Aman and the victim passed out after drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. Aman later awoke and performed fellatio on the unconscious victim while recording the acts on his cell phone.
The victim was unaware of the assault until he viewed the video made by Aman at a later date. Aman subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration.
Aman, through his attorney, filed an appeal charging that during questioning by the prosecutor and judge regarding each element of the offense at the time of the guilty plea, he was not sufficiently questioned about the factual basis of the crime which includes the element of “knowledge” that what he was doing at the time of the offense was a crime.
Courts take great pains to ensure that defendants articulate, under oath, their understanding of the guilty plea process and that they are pleading guilty to each element of the crime to ensure that they are not pleading to a crime they did not commit to avoid a potentially harsher sentence if convicted by a jury.
In this case, the court ruled that Aman’s guilty plea met all the legal tests required and denied the appeal of his conviction. The sentencing component was a different matter.
Sentencing includes consideration of both “aggravating circumstances” that justify a harsher sentence and any “mitigating circumstances” that tend to reduce the necessity for a harsh sentence.
Aman was sentenced to 10 years in this case, based on consideration of both kinds of factors. In this case, the Appellate Court found that the trial/sentencing judge erred by considering the aggravating factor of the “vulnerability” of the victim because he was incapacitated at the time of the offense.
The Appellate Court found that the victim’s incapacitation was itself already an element of the crime, and not an additional factor to be considered.
This constituted a “double counting” of aggravating circumstances. The court vacated the sentence and remanded (sent back to a lower court) the sentencing aspect of the case for re-sentencing.
To contact Jim McCarty, email jmccarty@cmcherald.com.