Judge Calls Out Convicted Family Killer During Sentencing

追加: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]Mr. Sam, I heard what your attorney said. U in light of what you've just heard. Is there anything that you want me to say before I close?

[00:00:10]>> Your Sure.

[00:00:13]>> Okay.

[00:00:16]Defendant was found guilty by a Mammoth County jury on dis on February 13, 2026 of four counts of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, two counts of secondderee aggravated assa arson, one count of secondderee possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, one count of thirdderee possession of a knife for unlawful purpose. One count of fourth degree unlawful possession of a knife.

[00:00:42]One count of seconddegree theft. one count of secondderee mislication of entrusted property and two counts of third degree hindering one's own apprehension after a six-week trial. As a part of the verdict, the jury unanimously found defendant commiti committed these four murders by his own hand and also found four aggravating factors to mandate a sentence of life without parole for Keith and Jennifer's murders and three aggravating factors for a sentence of life without parole for Jesse and Sophia's murders. To be clear, only one aggravating factor is necessary to sentence you to life without parole. For each of the four murders, the legal question left for this court will be whether these sentences should run concurrent or consecutive to each other. The court must also consider the sentence for the remaining counts that defendant was found guilty. I've reviewed the pre-sentence report. I've incorporated the letters supplied by the defendants be on defendants's behalf. I've also incorporated the victim's families written and oral statements made here in court today. I find the pre-sentence report report adequate for sentencing purposes. Defendant is 59 years old, married, father of two adult daughters, both of whom testified at this trial.

[00:02:01]Defendant's wife did not testify.

[00:02:03]Defendant denies any substance abuse evaluation uh issues indicating he drank one to two um drinks per week prior to his arrest in 2018. He claims to have PTSD as at the age of 33 while working as a consultant. He traveled for work and claims he observed many violent crimes. As for medical history, he reports 20 plus surgeries from 2012 to 2018 after being involved in a car accident. While he reports being permanently disabled since 2013, defendant reports to being in good physical health to his pre uh pre-sentence report investigator and he also does not manifest any observable disabilities.

[00:02:47]Defendant was a partial owner of two businesses, Square One, where he had 10% ownership and Ecostar where he had 50% ownership. despite those ownership interests and salary because he was deemed permanently disabled. He was also receiving $2,300 a month in social security and $7,200 a month in social security disability totaling $9,500 a month at the time of his arrest. He was also uh the homeowner with his wife uh of a home in Ocean Township that we heard about, which was later sold. While incarcerated for these murders, Ecostar was sold in 2020 and Square One was dissolved.

[00:03:31]Defendant reports he is one of three children. Keith, who the jury convicted defendant of murdering, and Corey, who defendant claims is an alcoholic with mental health issues, abusive, and a pathological liar. If you should be, it should be noted and it was mentioned again here today, a big part of defendants's defense included an allegation that law enforcement should have looked into Corey a little bit further for these murders. The jury outright rejected that argument, finding defendant guilty of all 15 counts in less than 5 hours. Defendant has no prior record. defendant was charged with insurance fraud pursuant to a separate indictment, but the state will dismiss that charge today after the sentence is imposed here and because defendant has no ability to pay if defendant was convicted and restitution was ordered. I have also reviewed the pre-sentence uh report for the victim statements that were provided by uh Bonnie Curidius who spoke about the ruthless premeditated murder of Jennifer, Keith, Jesse, and Sophia due to greed, anger, and jealousy by the defendant. To you, I agree with you, and I'm very sorry for your loss.

[00:04:49]I will incorporate the following facts into the aggravating versus mitigating sentencing analysis.

[00:04:55]In this case, there was an avalanche of evidence pointing to defendant being a callous, heartless, brutal killer of his brother, his sister-in-law, and two innocent kids. It's not a tragedy. It's a flatout killing of innocent people.

[00:05:17]Tragedy is a much different word. He clearly planned these killings in the hours prior to driving the 20 minutes to Keith and Jennifer's Coltsneck house.

[00:05:27]Defendant's actions were calculated from turning off his own surveillance cameras to choosing ammunition that would cause massive destruction to loading the gun cartridges with bullet after bullet after bullet while in his basement of his house only to leave his house in darkness with an evil merciless eye to assassinate and annihilate an entire family from this earth.

[00:05:57]defendant's plan took shape during that 20-minute drive to include shutting off the power in the victim's home once he arrived.

[00:06:07]That action describes a premeditated targeted act of violence designed to disable home security systems and power to create vulnerability and to ensure that the defendant had the advantage against his brother and his family. Once the defendant disabled the power, he deliberately and tactically waited outside for his brother to execute the attack. Defendant then shot his brother multiple times, including an execution tile an execution style shot to the head. A cudigra shot as Keith's immobile body laid face down on the ground.

[00:06:49]It is clear to this court the defendant acted with a debraved heart. No, showing no regard for human life, let alone his brother's life. After extinguishing his brother's life, defendant set his sights on his dead brother's innocent and unaware family. While defendant is the only one that could tell us the timeline of the massacre inside this home, it would appear defendant set his sights on Jennifer, Keith's wife.

[00:07:19]Unknowing what had happened outside, Jennifer left the bed, the bed that her and her husband were just in due to hearing these gunshots that ended her husband's life and went towards the front door to see what happened. It seems that while there was no power to Jennifer's house, there must have been some sort of lighting. or referring to exhibit S170 from the trial, the Fleer 1 prothermal camera in defendants's possession depicting the heat sensor that would show heat coming off the bodies of Jennifer, Jesse, and Sophia, and that would just make you a tactical killer. I say this because when defendant entered Jennifer's home, he shot her in the head with precision.

[00:08:06]That did not occur without any form of light or other sensory device. The gunshot wounded Jennifer's uh head tracked front to back. Jesse, age 11, Sophia, age eight, nearby must have heard the gunshot that wounded their mother or the multiple gunshots that killed their father or both because both of them left their bedrooms and that's when the defendant potentially shot at Jesse. According to evidence, defendant then grabbed a knife and stabbed both Jesse and Sophia multiple times. Kids, innocent kids. They hadn't even had a chance to start their lives yet. We heard just about in this courtroom about all the life they had left to live. You saw it.

[00:08:57]There is no way to know for sure when, but Jennifer was also stabbed multiple times in the chest, back, and abdomen, either before or after defendants stabbed her kids to death.

[00:09:15]Defendant stabbed Jesse seven times in the upper body and torso. Defendant's uh injuries left uh was left breathing but severely disabled.

[00:09:25]Defendant stabbed Sophia repeatedly over her body well over 40 times, including defensive wounds. One stab wound went right through her face and another through her chest cavity.

[00:09:38]Sophia was also disabled and left for dead. Neither child without parents to protect them due to your unconscionable actions could get any help, not even for each other.

[00:09:52]Again, defendant is the only living person who can recount exactly how these events unfolded, but the evidence reveals a chilling and calculated sequence.

[00:10:04]After carrying out these horrific acts, defendant went into the basement and deliberately set a slow burning fire carefully designed to give himself enough time to return home and manufacture an alibi. This was not panic. This was not confusion. It was cold, deliberate malice.

[00:10:26]Defendant engineered that fire to destroy every trace of what he had done, to erase the evidence, to erase the victims, and to reduce even their remains to ashes.

[00:10:40]As thick smoke consumed the home over the next several hours, Sophia and Jeffy suffered further agony through smoke inhalation. Injuries that ultimately contributed to Sophia's death. Even in their final moments, the suffering continued because of your calculated actions.

[00:11:01]There's no softer or gentler way to describe what happened here. Defendant committed familia.

[00:11:08]This was an annihilation of an entire family. A mass murder carried out by the very person who should have protected the most. And why?

[00:11:20]Because defendant carefully constructed lies. Uh, excuse me. Because defendants carefully constructed lies were collapsing around him. The manipulation that defendant used to control those closest to him was no longer working.

[00:11:36]Exposure was inevitable. The mask was slipping. The truth was about to emerge.

[00:11:42]Defendant was driven by greed, jealousy, selfishness, and a ruthless desire to preserve himself at all costs.

[00:11:53]Defendant's selfishness did not end with the slaughter of Keith and his family.

[00:11:58]It continued as he drove home and deliberately set fire to his own home, recklessly placing his own family in danger of death.

[00:12:10]Even then, his purpose never changed. He wanted to destroy the bloody clothing, the physical evidence, and every item that could expose him as to the depraved killer he truly was.

[00:12:24]The irony is staggering. The fenant was willing to burn down his own home, the very place where his children should have felt safe, simply to protect his secrets and conceal his monstrous actions.

[00:12:40]He desperately wanted to preserve the false image he had created for himself, the caring husband, the good father, the victim of some terrible attack.

[00:12:51]But the evidence tears that lie apart piece by piece. Defendant was never a victim.

[00:13:00]You were the cause of all of it. And the destruction did not stop there. The evidence shows he attempted to set one of his own vehicles on fire in another calculated effort to destroy incriminating evidence hidden inside.

[00:13:15]Every step he took was driven by deceit.

[00:13:19]Every action revealed another layer of manipulation, another desperate attempt to escape responsibility for the horror he created. The lies were relentless.

[00:13:31]The deception was constant.

[00:13:33]One of the many heartbreaking parts of this case was watching the devastation affect inflicted upon the defendant's own family in the aftermath. His actions left them displaced, homeless, and shattered while his children tried to comfort the very man responsible for destroying their lives.

[00:13:53]There are few betrayals more profound than that. A father is placed on this earth to protect children, to protect his own children, to protect his niece and nephew, to shield them from harm, to sacrifice for them when necessary.

[00:14:10]You did the opposite.

[00:14:12]He sacrificed everything that belonged to them, their home, their security, their peace, and their future, all in a desperate attempt to save yourself from the consequences of your own evil conduct.

[00:14:29]And while it is almost impossible to comprehend what his children must now endure, my heart goes out to them also because they must live with the terrible realization of who their father truly was and is. On that day, defendant was not a father. He was not a protector. He was and continues to be a manipulative, cold-blooded killer who destroyed every life around him in a ruthless effort to preserve his own.

[00:15:03]With that backdrop, the court will consider the aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors. The, as I pointed out, the defense requests that the court take into consideration the nine letters from defendants's family and close friends, as well as any appropriate mitigating factors, and I will do so.

[00:15:22]The state submits that there's no applicable mitigating factors and argues that aggravating factors 2C44-1A1, 1 A2, 1 A3, and 1 A 1 A9 should apply.

[00:15:38]In determining a sentence, the court must consider the nature of the offense and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. State versus Zuber 227 NJ422450 2017.

[00:15:52]The court is required to consider all the aggravating mitigating factors to find those supported by the evidence that state versus Dan Zal or Dal Zal excuse me 182 NJ49450 2005.

[00:16:08]The court's personal views in rectifying social ills cannot be a factor in determining p punishment. State versus Ikurd 369 NJ super 610 comma 621 appellet division 2004 sentencing decisions follow a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis state versus LV 410 NJ super 90a 108 appellet division 2009 certif denied 2011 New Jersey 156 2010 the factors are not simply balanced and afforded equivalent tell you the court must focus upon the offense when formulating a sentence. State versus Roth 95 New Jersey 334,Ama 368 1984.

[00:16:54]State versus Hodgej 95 New Jersey 369 377 through 3794.

[00:17:01]And state versus McFarland uh 224 New Jersey 458, 466 2016. And lastly, state versus Fuentes 20 217, New Jersey 572 and 73 2014.

[00:17:18]Thus, the state requires or excuse me, the statute requires a thoughtful weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors, not merely counting one against the other. State versus Denman 347 NJ super 457 46768 appellet division certif denied 174 New Jersey 41202 an explicit statement on the record of the aggravating and mitigating factors found uh and how they were balanced is required that state versus nal datali 184 New Jersey 458489 2005 the court has farranging discretion questions as to the source and types of evidence used in determining the punishment imposed. State versus Davis 96, New Jersey 611, comma 619 620, 1984.

[00:18:10]NJSA 2C441A sets forth 15 aggravating factors a court shall consider when imposing a sentence where the legislature has already taken certain aspects of the nature and circumstances of the offense into account in grading. The court may not consider those same aspects against the aggravating factors state versus pened 119 New Jersey 621 1990. Thus, a victim's death generally may not be viewed as an aggravating factor in a homicide. State versus carry 168 New Jersey 413 comma 425 2001 2001.

[00:18:51]However, the nature of the death can be considered in sentencing for homicide.

[00:18:56]State versus Sodto 340 NJ super 47 appellet division certif denied 170 New Jersey 209 2001 the court finds aggravating factor number one the nature and circumstances of the offense and the role of the actor therein including whether or not it was committed in an especially heinous cruel and depraved manner. This factor has been held to include the cruel manner of the attack. State versus Roth 95 New Jersey at 367. The brutal and senseless nature of the stabbing. State versus Bowens at 639. And the painful dreadful killing of a child by fire. State versus Lewis 223. NJ Super 1453 appellet division. Certified 111 New Jersey 584 1988.

[00:19:48]In this case, this factor is applicable and is entitled to significant weight.

[00:19:53]Under this factor, the sentencing court reviews the severity of the defendant's crime, the single most important factor in the sentencing process. A sentencing assessing the degree to which the defendant's conduct threatened the safety of the direct victims and the public. State versus lawless 214 NJ 594 609610 2013.

[00:20:17]In doing so, the court focuses on the gravity of the defendant's conduct, considering both the impact upon the immediate victims and the overall circumstances surrounding the criminal event. A 609. When assessing whether a defendant's conduct was especially heinous, cruel, or depraved, a sentencing court must avoid double counting facts that establish the elements of the irrelevant offense.

[00:20:42]State versus Fuentes 217 New Jersey at 74 and 75. To demonstrate this factor, a sentencing court may consider whether the aggravating facts show that a defendant's behavior extended to the extreme reaches of the prohibited behavior. it at 75. In State versus Rivers, the appella division found a factual basis for an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved matter of an offense where the defendant intentionally shot unarmed victims and pointed his gun at others. 252 NJ Super 142 152 to 154, Pellet Division 1991.

[00:21:20]The facts in this case establish conduct that falls squarely within the most extreme reaches of brutality contemplated under aggravating factor number one. Defendant did not merely kill his victims. He subjected them to prolonged savage and excessive violence that went far beyond what was necessary to cause death. The sheer number and nature of the injuries inflicted upon each victim demonstrate calculated cruelty, domination, and a complete disregard of human suffering. Defendant intentionally shot Keith Cano multiple times. The attack culminated in an execution style gunshot wound to Keith's head. That final shot was not necessary to accomplish the killing. It reflected deliberate and methodical violence inflicted upon a defenseless victim laying on a ground with his with his face in dirt.

[00:22:19]The multiple gunshot wounds culminating in the fatal shot to the head demonstrated an unmistakable intent to annihilate rather than to simply kill.

[00:22:31]The manner of the attack revealed coldness, brutality, and a complete indifference to human life.

[00:22:38]Defendant then turned to Jennifer Cano.

[00:22:40]He shot Jennifer in the head and while she remained alive, repeatedly stabbed her. The evidence established defendant inflicted multiple stab wounds after already delivering a catastrophic gunshot wound. Those additional wounds dramatically increased Jennifer's suffering and terror. The attacks were not instantaneous. defendant prolonged the violence and inflicted repeated penetrating injuries upon a woman already gravely injured.

[00:23:14]The repeated stabbing after the gunshot wound reflected rage, overkill, and extraordinary cruelty well beyond that was required to cause death. The violence inflicted upon Jesse and Sophia were even more horrifying in its cruelty and depravity.

[00:23:33]The evidence presented at trial establish established that these children desperately tried to flee from inside their home while the defendant hunted them with a knife. The crime scene reflected terror, panic, desperate attempts to escape and attempt to protect their own lives. These children experienced imaginable fear in the final moments of their lives as their uncle relentlessly pursued and attacked them.

[00:24:09]Defendant repeatedly stabbed Jesse. The wounds were not isolated or incidental.

[00:24:15]They reflected a sustained and violent assault.

[00:24:20]Jesse suffered defensive injuries, establishing that he consciously attempted to protect himself from the defendant's attacks.

[00:24:29]Those injuries demonstrate that Jesse experienced the terror of fighting for his life while defendant continued the assault.

[00:24:38]The fendant nevertheless persisted, repeatedly driving the knife into a child's into a child attempting to survive.

[00:24:48]The brutality of repeatedly stabbing a child who was actively trying to defend himself demonstrates conduct that was especially cruel and depraved.

[00:24:59]The injuries inflicted upon Sophia were particularly shocking in both their savagery and force. Defendants stabbed Sophia through her nasal cavity with such violence that it fractured her sinus and penetrated her brain. Jesus.

[00:25:15]Another stab wound pierced her chest cavity and collapsed her lung. That's what you did. These were catastrophic injuries inflicted with overwhelming force. The natures of the wounds demonstrated repeated acts of extreme violence directed at one of the most vulnerable victims manageable imaginable. Defendant did not stop after inflicting lethal injuries. Though he continued the assault with a level of force and brutality that far exceeded that would have been necessary to cause death.

[00:25:50]After even after inflicting those devastating injuries, defendant abandoned Sophia inside the burning home. Rather than summon help or rescue, defendant left her lying helpless. Hel, excuse me. The defendant left her lying helpless as smoke and fire consumed the residents over the course of hours.

[00:26:18]Sophia was left for dead with no ability to move.

[00:26:22]The medical evidence confirmed that smoke inhilation contributed to her death. Sophia's blood contained an extraordinary 49% caroxyhemoglobin level, demonstrating that she remained alive and continued breathing toxic smoke after suffering multiple catastrophic stab wounds.

[00:26:45]The suffering associated with those final final moments of life is almost impossible to comprehend.

[00:26:52]Sophia endured devastating injuries while simultaneously inhaling poisonous smoke as the fire spread through the home around her.

[00:27:03]The image presented by the evidence is one of extraordinary cruelty. An injured child, mortally wounded and unable to escape, struggling to breathe while trapped inside a burning home after being brutally attacked by the defendant. The home, which should have represented safety and protection, instead became the setting for the prolonged terror, agony, and her death.

[00:27:32]As recognized in State versus Lewis, the painful and dreadful killing of a child by fire constitutes precisely the type of especially heinous and depraved conduct contemplated by aggravating factor number one. The fact the defendant inflicted injuries far beyond those minimally necessary to accomplish the murders strongly supports this factor.

[00:27:56]The fact that this defendant did more than was mentally required to satisfy an element of the offense may properly be considered under aggravating factor one even where the conduct overlaps with the elements of the crime. That's C Canel uh New Jersey code annotated comment 3 NJSA 2C4144-1A also citing state versus mara in state versus mara the appellet division upheld a finding of aggravating factor 1 where the harm inflicted exceeded the single serious injury necessary to establish aggravated assault 253 NJ super 557 567 appellet division 1996 Six.

[00:28:40]Similarly, in State versus Fentes, the Supreme Court discussed repeated stabbing, continued beating, and the use of excess force as conduct potentially supporting aggravating factor one when properly explaining uh it by the sentencing court. That's 217 New Jersey at 77. Here, the court has carefully evaluated all the injuries inflicted by each and every victim, both individually and collectively. the multiple gunshots to Keith, including the execution style shot to the head. The gunshot wound to Jennifer's head, followed by multiple stab wounds when she remained alive, the repeated stabbing of Jesse as he attempted to defend himself, the catastrophic stab wounds inflicted upon Sophia and her defensive wounds, and the additional suffering caused by smoke inhilation. and the fire demonstrated violence that extended far beyond what was necessary for the murder themselves.

[00:29:37]These acts were not merely intentional killings. They were executions carried out in an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner. The court therefore finds aggravating factor one fully applicable and affords its significant weight.

[00:29:53]The court also finds aggravating factor number two, the aggra the gravity and seriousness of the harm inflicted on the victim, including whether or not the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or was for any other reason substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or mental power of resistance.

[00:30:20]Sentencing judges are instructed by the Supreme Court to examine the totality of the harm inflicted. State versus Crumpfeld Crumpold, excuse me, 162 NJ 345, 358 2000.

[00:30:34]In applying that case, the court focuses on Sophia's and Jesse's extraordinary vulnerability and their substantial inability to exercise any meaningful physical resistance during defendants's brutal attack. The evidence established that the defendant completely outpowered both children through his sheer size, strength, and possession of deadly weapons.

[00:31:02]Sophia stood only four feet tall and weighed approximately 45 lbs. Her stature was exceptionally small and thin. Jesse measured 4 feet 10 in tall and weighed only 95 lbs. Defendant, by contrast, weighed approximately 230 lb, stood 5' 11 in tall at the time of his arrest.

[00:31:26]defendant outweighed Sophia by approximately 185 pounds and outweighed Jesse by approximately 135 pounds. He towered nearly 2 feet over Sophia and a foot over Jesse. The disparity in size, weight, strength, and physical power between defendant and these children is staggering. Sophia and Jesse were innocent, defenseless, and obviously unarmed children. Defendant was a full-grown adult male armed with a knife.

[00:32:03]These children had absolutely no realistic ability to defend themselves, escape, or resist defendants violent assault. State versus Paneda 119 NJ 621 6281 1990.

[00:32:17]The gravity and seriousness of the harm inflicted upon Sophia and Jesse cannot be overstated. Defendant exploited their complete physical vulnerability and used overwhelming force against children who were utterly incapable of protecting themselves from the terror and violence he unleashed.

[00:32:38]The attacks were not momentary or accidental. defendant used a knife against two small children who faced a terrifying and hopeless situation against a much larger armed adult.

[00:32:53]Their vulnerability magnified the cruelty of the offense and the severity of the suffering inflicted upon them.

[00:33:01]Defendant's conduct also demonstrated profound cowardness.

[00:33:06]Rather than confront an equal, defendant chose to attack two exceptionally vulnerable children who posed no threat to him whatsoever.

[00:33:17]He used that overwhelming size, weight, strength, and possession of a deadly weapon to dominate and to terrorize children who were physically incapable of defending themselves.

[00:33:31]Sophia and Jesse were powerless against the defendant's assault. defendant prayed upon that helplessness and exploited it in the most brutal way imaginable.

[00:33:43]The court finds that the overwhelming imbalance of physical power combined with defendants's use of a deadly weapon against two defenseless children demonstrates an extreme level of brutality, cowardness, and helplessness that strongly supports this aggravating factor and I give it significant weight.

[00:34:02]Court also finds aggravating factor number three, the risk the defendant will commit another offense.

[00:34:07]When the sentencing court relies upon the risk of another offense, the court must identify particular facts supporting that finding. State versus case 220 NJ 49, 6667 2014.

[00:34:24]The court does so here in state versus Verona. The appellet division upheld a finding that the defendant presented a risk of committing another offense even though he had no prior criminal record.

[00:34:36]242 NJ super 474 491 492 appellet division certif denied 122 New Jersey 386 1990.

[00:34:48]There the defendant was an established businessman in a community. Yet, the discovery of a kilogram of cocaine in his possession demonstrated access to large quantities of narcotics and supported the conclusion that he would likely engage in future criminal conduct if permitted to remain fa free of 491.

[00:35:10]The the appellet division nevertheless noted that the sentencing court in Verona afforded this factor only some weight. Similar to the defendant in Verona, defendant here has no prior criminal convictions. Unlike Verona, however, the facts supporting the risk of reoffense are significantly stronger, more disturbing, and far more compelling. The court does not base this finding upon speculation or generalized concerns. The court bases the finding upon the extraordinary level of planning, calculation, concealment, and sustained criminal conduct reflected throughout this case. These offenses were not spontaneous or impulsive acts committed in a moment of uncontrolled rage. Defendant engaged in a deliberate and methodical course of conduct that involved multiple weapons, multiple victims, and calculated efforts to destroy evidence and evade responsibility.

[00:36:10]Defendant armed himself and carried out separate acts of violence against four separate victims. After inflicting those catastrophic injuries, defendants set multiple fires through two different homes at two different locations miles apart from each other in an effort to conceal the murders and destroy evidence.

[00:36:31]The use of different weapons, the sequential nature of the attacks, and the deliberate acts of setting fires afterwards demonstrated organized, purposeful, and calculated criminal behavior.

[00:36:45]defendant did not stop after the killings. The court finds that those facts critically important in assessing future dangerousness.

[00:36:52]They reveal a defendant capable of calculated violence followed by deliberate attempts to cover up his crimes.

[00:37:00]This sheer scope and complexity of defendants's actions strongly support the conclusion that he commits that he presents a continuing risk to society.

[00:37:10]defendant demonstrated a willingness to commit extreme violence when it served his personal interests. He further demonstrated a willingness to engage in additional criminal conduct afterwards in order to conceal what he had done.

[00:37:25]The murders themselves are horrific. The calculated attempts to erase evidence through fire magnified the danger defendant presents uh excuse me the danger defendant presents because they reflect planning consciousness of guilt and continued willingness to be to break the law to avoid accountability.

[00:37:48]Moreover, the jury here convicted the defendant of theft related offenses spanning over two years. Those convictions establish that the defendant engaged in an ongoing pattern of unlawful conduct long before the murders. State versus Lo Kaine 454 NJ super 98,21 appellet division 2018.

[00:38:11]This was not an isolated lapse of judgment by an otherwise law-abiding citizen. The evidence demonstrated sustained dishonest and criminal behavior over an extended period of time.

[00:38:24]The murders themselves directly flowed from defendants's efforts to conceal and protect those ongoing illegal acts.

[00:38:33]Defendants willingness to escalate from long-term theft and deception to calculated murder and arson demonstrates an alarming progression of criminal conduct.

[00:38:44]The court also finds a defendant's complete lack of remorse highly significant. In State versus Rivers, the appellet division held that the a defendant's lack of remorse properly supported aggravating factors three and nine. 252 NJ Super 142 153 appellet division 1991.

[00:39:05]Here defendant has shown absolutely zero remorse for the murders of Keith, Jennifer, Jesse, and Sophia and for burning down his own family's home.

[00:39:18]Despite the avalanche of evidence, the venant has failed to acknowledge the overwhelming and devastating evidence establishing his guilt. He has shown no compassion for the victims, no acceptance of responsibility, and no recognition of the suffering he uh inflicted upon the entire family, his own and everybody else in this room.

[00:39:42]That absence of remorse matters because it demonstrates to this court that the defendant has not confronted the magnitude of his crimes or accepted responsibility for his conduct. A defendant who refuses to acknowledge overwhelming evidence even after conviction presents a greater risk of future criminal behavior because there is no indication of rehabilitation, insight, or moral reckoning. Instead, defendants's conduct reflects continued self-preservation and a denial in the face of catastrophic violence. The court therefore finds based upon the particular facts in this case that the defendant presents a substantial risk of committing another offense if given the opportunity. The prolonged theft related conduct, the calculated and gruesome murders, the use of multiple weapons, the deliberate setting of fires to conceal the crimes, and defendants's complete absence of remorse collectively establishes aggravating factor number three. The court affords this factor significant weight. The court looked at aggravating factor four, five, six, seven, and eight and find all of them to be inapplicable.

[00:40:56]Aggravating factor number nine, the need to deter this defendant and others from violating the law.

[00:41:02]This factor is applicable and also afforded significant weight.

[00:41:09]The court's determination or a aggravating factor 9 requires a qualitative qualitative assessment of the risk of recidivism and also involves determinations that go beyond the simple finding of a criminal history and includes an evaluation and judgment about the in individual in light of his or her history. State versus Thomas 1 88 NJ 137 153 2006 deterrence has been repeatedly identified in all facets of the criminal justice system as one of the most important factors in sentencing and is the key to proper understanding of protecting the public. State versus McGarle 143, NJ484,501-196 citing state in the interests of Cah and B 89 New Jersey 326 334 1982.

[00:42:04]Moreover, demands for deterrence are strengthened in direct proportion to the gravity and harmfulness of the offense.

[00:42:13]C ah 89 New Jersey at 337 for purpose of aggravating factor 9 deterrence incorporates two interrelated but distinguishable concepts namely the sentence's general deterrent effect on the public and its personal deterrent effect on the defendant state versus Jarbath 114 New Jersey 494 405 1989 cases where imprisonment for serious crimes will not further the goal of general deterrence are extremely rare.

[00:42:44]It at 408. At the same time, in the absence of a finding supporting specific deterrence, general deterrence has relatively insignificant penal value. It 405. Accordingly, the sentencing uh court focuses on the need to deter the individual defendant from violating the law.

[00:43:05]The evidence in this case established defendants's conduct was calculated, organized, and purposeful criminal conduct extending over a per a significant period of time. As I mentioned, he engaged in the theft related offenses over the course of nearly two years. Those ongoing criminal acts ultimately culminated in four murders, two arson, weapons offenses, and hindering apprehension. The evidence evidence demonstrated that the defendant committed these crimes to protect his own interest and ongoing illegal conduct. The nature of the crimes themselves powerfully supports both general and specific deterrence.

[00:43:44]Defendant murdered four people, including two children, through calculated and extraordinary vi violence. He used multiple weapons. He repeatedly shot and stabbed victims far beyond what was necessary to cause death. He then set fires throughout the ho the home in an effort to destroy evidence and conceal the murders. These were not crimes committed in panic or confusion. Defendant made a series of deliberate choices before after before before during and after the murders. Every stage of the criminal episode reflected conscious decisionmaking and calculating conduct.

[00:44:25]The g the need for general deterrence in this matter is overwhelming.

[00:44:30]Society must receive a clear and unmistakable message that calculated murder, the slaughter of children, and the use of arson to conceal crimes will result in the most serious punishment permitted by law. Crimes of this magnitude strike at the very foundation of public safety and civilized order.

[00:44:49]The brutal murder of an entire family inside their home creates fear far beyond the direct victims because it destroys the sense of security that every person should feel within their own residence. The law must respond forcefully to conduct of this nature in order to deter others who might contemplate resolving financial pressure, exposure, or personal problems through calculated violence.

[00:45:18]The court also finds an extraordinary need for specific deterrence. Defendant presents a substantial risk of reaffending for the reasons I've already stated. Defendant demonstrated a willingness to engage in sustained criminal conduct, escalate the conduct into calculated murder, and then commit additional crimes to conceal his actions. Those a those facts establish a profound disregard for human life for our societal laws and it is clear to me that he does not see that. Moreover, unlike the defendant in Jarbath, defendant fully understood the nature and consequences of his actions. The evidence established planning, concealment, destruction of evidence and efforts to to avoid detection. Those acts demonstrate consciousness of guilt and awareness that his conduct was criminal. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented during approximately five weeks of testimony, defendant has shown absolutely zero remorse, no empathy, no acceptance of responsibility. While defendant maintains the constitutional right to remain silent and he asserts his innocence here, the court may nevertheless consider the complete absence of remorse in evaluating the need for deterrence. Defendant displayed no credible emotion or acknowledgement of the devastation he caused to four victims and an entire extended family.

[00:46:52]defendants own desires, decisions, and self-interest drove every stage of these crimes. The evidence demonstrates calculated choices, not diminished capacity or misunderstanding.

[00:47:05]Accordingly, the court finds a strong basis supporting both general and specific deterrence. For all of those reasons, the court finds aggravating factor number nine fully applicable and affords it significant weight. The court has looked at the remaining aggravating factors and finds all of them inapplicable.

[00:47:24]The court will now balance the mitigating factors. In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on a person who has been convicted of an offense or offenses, the court must properly consider the following mitigating circumstances pursuant to NJSA 2C4 44-1B.

[00:47:42]Number one, the defendant's conduct neither caused nor threatened serious harm.

[00:47:48]Here, the defendant shot and stabbed four people to death while also putting his own family at risk of death. As such, defendant's conduct did did in fact cause serious harm, mitigating factor one is inapplicable. Number two, the defendant did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm.

[00:48:08]defendant planned the murders in the hours leading up to the to leaving his house and when he left in his car in darkness to kill those his family. He armed himself with a gun and knife and committed these crimes. He used a flammable liquid or gasoline to burn two homes. Mitigating factor two is inapplicable.

[00:48:30]Number three, defendant acted under strong provocation. There is no evidence defendant acted under any provoc provoc provocation excuse me factor three is inapplicable.

[00:48:42]There is there were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify defendants's conduct through failing to establish though failing to establish the defense. That's mitigating four.

[00:48:53]There is absolutely no excuse for defendants's heartless brutal behavior.

[00:48:57]Mitigating factor 4 is inapplicable.

[00:49:02]Number five, the victim of the defendant's conduct induced or facilitated its commission. There was no evidence that defendants's conduct was induced by any victim. All victims in this matter in this matter were defenseless. Mitigating factor five is inapplicable.

[00:49:21]defendant had has compensated or will compensate the victim of his conduct uh for the damage or injury that he sustained or he will participate in a program of community service. Defendant can't compensate anybody in this case because he killed everybody in this case. Mitigating factor six is also inapplicable.

[00:49:41]Number seven, defendant has no prior uh history of of delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the present offense.

[00:49:52]As I've mentioned, defendant has no prior criminal convictions. Therefore, the court will give this factor some weight. Number eight, the defendant's conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to reoccur. Mitigating factors eight and nine are to be weighed against aggravating factor number three state versus tawi the second 244 NJ super 582 593 594 appellet division 1990 since the court has afforded significant weight to aggravating factor number three mitigating factor 8 is also inapplicable number nine the character and attitude of the defendant indicated that he is unlikely to commit another offense again since mitigating factors Factors eight and nine are to be weighed against aggravating factor three. Mitigating factor number nine is inapplicable. I'm citing Towi at three at 593 and 94.

[00:50:45]Also, defendants uh are likely to get the benefit of mitigating factor number nine when they show remorse which is Rivera 249 NJ at 293 and 294. But a lack of remorse is sufficient to preclude this application. State versus O'Donnell 117 New Jersey 2000 excuse me 210 216 217 1989. In this case, defendant has shown no remorse. Mitigating factor 9 is inapplicable. Defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment. Mitigating factor 10 is inapplicable because defendant has been convicted of a crime with a presumption of incarceration.

[00:51:24]State versus scene 443 NJ super 134 144 to 145 appellet division 2015 mitigating factor number 11. The imprisonment of the defendant would entail excessive hardship to the defendant or the defendant's dependence.

[00:51:40]Defendant has two adult children who who do not rely on defendant for financial support. While while it is always hard to lose a parent when there is a presumption of incarceration, there is nothing in the record to support this mitigating factor. Therefore, mitigating factor 11 is inapplicable.

[00:51:58]Mitigating factor number 12, the willingness of the defendant to cooperate with law enforcement.

[00:52:03]Defendant actively hindered the investigation, attempted to destroy critical evidence by setting fires to both residents connected to these offenses. Those deliberate acts of arson were calculated efforts to conceal murders, eliminate forensic evidence, and to obstruct investigators from uncovering the truth. Mitigating factor 12 is inapplicable.

[00:52:24]Mitigating factor 13, the conduct of a youthful defendant was substantially influenced by another person more mature than the defendant is that factor is inapplicable. Defendant was not under the age of 26. Uh, mitigating factor 14 is unavailable and mitigating factor 15 only applies for offenses other than murder. He was charged with murder here. Therefore, it's inapplicable.

[00:52:49]Therefore, the court finds aggravating factors 1, 2, three, and nine, giving each significant weight, and found only one mitigating factor, number seven, which the court gave some weight. The aggravating factors clearly and substantially outweigh the mitigating factors here. Now, before I impose sentence, I will also consider the doctrine of merger of some of these crimes for which the defendant was found guilty.

[00:53:15]The doctrine of merger codified in NJSA 2C1-8A governs whether multiple convictions arising from the same conduct may stand separately for sentencing purposes. The statute provides that although a defendant may be prosecuted for more than one offense arising from the same conduct, the defendant may not be convicted of more than one offense where one, one offense is included in the other. Two, one offense consists only of conspiracy or preparation to commit the other. Three, inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the offenses. or four, the offenses differ only in that one prohibits conduct generally and the other prohibits a specific instance of that conduct. A determination regarding merger must be made by the court after a verdict or finding of guilt.

[00:54:11]2C1-8A.

[00:54:13]The doctrine of murder rests upon the principles that a defendant who commits a single offense may not be punished as though he committed multiple offenses for the same conduct. State versus Tate 216 New Jersey 300 comma 302 2013 quoting State versus Davis 68 New Jersey 69A 77 1975 convictions for lesser included offenses offenses that are a necessary component of the commission of another offense or offenses that merely offer an alternative basis for punishing the same criminal conduct will merge state versus Brown 138 New Jersey 481561 1994.

[00:54:58]In determining merger, the court also applies the flexible analysis articulated in Davis, which examines the time and place of each offense, whether proof of one offense is necessary to prove the other, whether one act form part of a larger scheme, the defendant's intent, and the consequences of the criminal standards violated. That's Davis, 68, New Jersey at 81.

[00:55:24]The court finds that count five merges into count three and count six merges into count four. Count three charges uh the defendant with murder of Jesse Cano.

[00:55:37]Count five charges felony murder of Jesse Cano during the commission of an arson at 15 Willowbrook Road. Count four charges the murder of Sophia Cano and count six charges uh felony murder of Sophia Cano during the same arson. These offenses constitute alternative theories of liability for the same homicides.

[00:55:59]Cate versus Brown 138 New Jersey 561.

[00:56:03]The offenses occurred during the same criminal episode at the same location and within a short period of time. Proof of the murders are was necessary to sustain the felony murder convictions.

[00:56:16]Further, the felony murder counts form part of the larger scheme in which defendants set the resident on fire to ensure Jesse and Sophia would not survive. Because the offenses are substantially identical in both fact and law, separate conviction convictions would violate the principle set forth in Davis. Accordingly, count five merges into count three and count six merges into count four. The court finds that count seven, aggravated arson at 15 Willowbrook Road does not merge the once the felony murder counts merges into the murder counts. Aggravated arson remains a distinct offense because proof of arson was not necessary to establish the murder convictions. Again, that's Brown 138 New Jersey at 561.

[00:57:04]Count eight, aggravated arson at 27 Tilton Drive, defendant's own residence, also does not merge because it involved a separate criminal act committed at a separate location.

[00:57:16]The court finds that count nine, possession of a handgun for unlawful purpose, merges into counts one through four. The jury instructions identify the unlawful purpose as defendants's use of a handgun against Keith Cano, Jesse Cano, Jennifer Cano, and Sophia Cano. The evidence did not establish any broader unlawful purpose beyond the murders themselves.

[00:57:40]Unlike state versus DAZ, when the only unlawful purpose in possessing the gun is to use it to commit this substantive offense, merger is required. That's 144 New Jersey at 636.

[00:57:53]Unlike State versus Tate clarified that a weapon possession conviction merges when the evidence does not support another unlawful purpose for possessing the weapon. It's 216 New Jersey at 303.

[00:58:05]Because the state provided no broader unlawful purpose here, count 9 merges into counts one through four.

[00:58:14]Uh the court finds that count 11, possession of a knife for unlawful purpose, merges into counts two through four. The jury was instructed the defendant possessed the knife for the for the purpose to use it unlawfully against Jennifer Cano, Jesse Cano, and Sophia Cano. The evidence established no broader unlawful purpose beyond the commission of those murders.

[00:58:35]Accordingly, merger is required under Diaz and Tate. The court further finds that count 12, unlawful possession of a knife merges into count 11 uh pursuant to NJSA2C1-8A1 because the elements of count 12 were subsumed in within count 11.

[00:58:54]Counts 13, 14, 15, and 16. The the court finds that count 13, theft of movable property and count 14, misallocation of entrusted property do not merge. These offenses involve separate conduct occurring over different periods of time and constituted distinct criminal acts from the homicide related offenses. The court further finds that counts 15 and 16 hindering apprehension of oneself do not merge into any other counts. Those offenses occurred at different locations and involved separate uh conduct from the murders, arsons and theft related offenses. Additionally, the elements of hindering differ materially from the remaining offenses. So therefore the court finds as follows. Count five merges into count three. Count six merges into count four. Count nine merges into counts 1 through four. Count 12 merges into count 11. and count 11 merges into count two through four. The defendant will be sentenced as to count one, two, three, four, 7, 8, 13- 16.

[01:00:08]The next analysis is whether the uh court will consider consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.

[01:00:15]NJSA2C44-5A authorizes the court to impose multiple sentences either co concurrently or consecutively with no outer limit on cumulation. Before making the determination, the court must sentence each offense individually, accounting aggravating and mitigating factors under NJSA 2A, excuse me, 2C44-1A and 1B and uh citing State versus Rogers 124, NJ13, 1119, 1991.

[01:00:48]State versus Yarborough 100, New Jersey 627, 643, 644, 1985 establishes six guidelines.

[01:00:57]There can be no number one, there can be no free crimes. Punishment must fit the crime. Two, the court must separate state must separately state its reasons for imposing consecutive or concurrent sentences. Number three, the court must consider facts relating to the crimes, including whether A, the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other. B, the crimes involve separate acts of violence or threats of violence. C, the crimes were committed at different times or places rather than so close in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberant behavior. D, any of the crimes involve multiple victims. and e the convictions were numerous.

[01:01:43]Four, there shall be no double counting of aggravating factors. Five, successive terms for the same offense should not ordinarily equal the punishment for the first offense. Six, cumulative consecutive sentences should not exceed the sum of the longest terms imposable for the two most serious offenses.

[01:02:04]Uh, state versus carry 168 New Jersey 413 423 2001 reaffirm the guidelines 2 4 5 and six address procedural requirements only. Guideline one tilts towards consecutive sentences because it focuses on the crime on the crime not on the criminal. Guideline three is therefore the substantive uh substantive excuse me deciding factor and must be weighed qualitatively and not quantitatively in a 427. The court may impose consecutive sentences even when a majority of the guideline three factors favor concurrent sentences.

[01:02:47]Crimes involving multiple deaths or serious bodily injuries are especially appropriate for a consecutive sentences.

[01:02:53]That's carry at 428.

[01:02:56]As to count one, two, three, and four, the four murders uh charged in this case. All guideline three factors support consecutive sentences. Factor A, B, and C. The four murders were independent of each other. Each involved a separate act of violence by different means and in different locations.

[01:03:17]Defendant shot Keith uh Cano on the lawn, stabbed and shot Jennifer Cano inside the home, stabbed Jennifer uh Jesse Cano with potential gunshot and smoke inhilation, and stabbed Sophia Cano and caused her death through smoke inhilation from a fire. He set although the killing occurred with a within a compressed time frame, they were sufficiently distinct as not to constitute a single period of aberant behavior.

[01:03:46]Factor D, there were four separate victims. Factor E, with 15 total convictions and 10 sentences to be imposed, the conviction count is numerous. Carry 168, New Jersey at 424.

[01:04:00]Consecutive sentences are warranted when balancing the guidelines on all four of these counts uh for the murders. And that's carry at 428.

[01:04:09]As to counts seven and eight, the aggravated arson, count seven, the arson at 15 Willowbrook Road, runs concurrently.

[01:04:18]Factor A through D favor concurrent sentencing. The the fire was sent contemporaneously with the murders, was closely intertwined with the conduct uh the course of conduct, and contributed to two victims causes of death. It did not constitute an independent criminal episode. Therefore, it will run concurrent. Count eight, the arson at 27 Tilton Drive will run consecutively.

[01:04:44]That arson was independent under factors A through C. It occurred at separate locations after a break in the chain of events of driving from one crime scene to another. Factor D further supports consecutive sentences because it introduced three new victims, Caitlyn, Marissa, and Susan Cano. Although factor E favors concurrent sentencing, giving the accumulating number of consecutive sentences, the separate location and new victims render this conduct a distinct criminal episode. Therefore, the guideline warrants a consecutive sentence. Count 13, theft. Count 13, theft will run consecutively. The theft occurred in 2017 and 2018, well before the November 8 uh November 2018 murders and constituted repeated independent criminal conduct. Factors A, B, C favor consecutive sentencing. The thefts uh objectives were independent of the homicide and arson offenses involved no acts of violence and were so temporally removed as to not reflect a single period of aberant behavior. Factor D marginally favors concurrent sentencing because the theft victims overlap the murder victims.

[01:06:04]Factor E also favors concurrent sentencing given the number of consecutive sentences already imposed.

[01:06:10]Nonetheless, there can be no free crimes. Guideline one, carry 168 NJ at 423 and the court may impose consecutive sentences even where a majority of factor factors favors otherwise. It at 427.

[01:06:27]Three factors here favor consecutive sentences and the theft is substantially distinct from the homicide and arson offenses. Therefore, a consecutive sentence is appropriate. Count 14, mislication of entrusted property. That will run concurrent.

[01:06:43]It arises from the identical conduct from count 13, misappropriation of funds from Keith from Keith Canaro's trust at the same time in the same location with the same victims. All guideline three factors favor concurrent sentencing and it and running it consecutively would impose multiple punishments for a single criminal act. Counts 15 and 16, the hindering. Count 15 related to hindering apprehension related to the murders. Uh, Count 15 will run concurrently.

[01:07:13]Defendant attempted to destroy bloody silk clothing after the murders by setting it on fire. Factor A, the offense was not independent of the murders. Factor B, the conduct was identical to the arson. Factor C, it occurred contemporaneously with and at the same location as the arson. Factor D, the victims were the same as the murder victims. Factor E, a consecutive sentence would push the total uh towards the numerous range. Uh a majority of these factors favor concurrent sentencing. Factor 16, hindering apprehension related to the theft of mislication uh to the theft of mislication of entrusted property will also run concurrently. Defendant committed these uh offenses in furtherance of counts 13 and 14 by forging documents and stealing from Keith Cano's trust. All guideline three factors favor concurrent sentencing. Factors A, B, and C. The offense was not independent and the commit and it was committed in furtherance of the same course of conduct. Factor D, the victims were the same. Factor E, a consecutive sentence would uh further approach the numerous range. With that said, um the court finds as following. Count two runs consecutively to count one. Count three runs consecutively to count one and two. Count four runs consecutively to counts one through three. Count eight run consecutively to the aggregate of counts one through four. Count 13 runs consecutively to the aggregate of counts 1 through 4 and 8. Counts 7, 14, 15, and 16 run concurrently with the aggregate consecutive sentences. So with that being said, the court will impose the following sentence. under indictment 1902 0283 uh count one charging you with murder in violation of 2C11-3.

[01:09:22]I sentence you the custody of the commissioner of the department of corrections to life with no possibility of parole. This was a graves act offense. There's a $100 VCCO penalty, a $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty, and a $30 law enforcement trading front penalty. You have 2,745 days of jail credit. As to count two, charging murder in violation of 2C11-3, a first-degree offense. I sentence the custody of the commissioner of Department of Corrections for life without the possibility of parole.

[01:09:56]Again, to run consecutive to count one.

[01:09:58]This is also a Graves Act offense.

[01:10:01]There's a $100 VCCO, $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty, and again, the same jail credit. Count three, charging you with murder in violation of 2C11-3, a firstdegree offense. I sentence you to the custody of the commissioner of the Department of Corrections for life with no possibility of parole.

[01:10:22]Um, there's a $100 VCCO penalty and a $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Count four, charging you with murder in violation of 2C 11-3.

[01:10:34]Uh, I sentence you to the custody of the commissioner of Department of Corrections for life without the possibility of parole. That's um a $100 VCCO penalty and a $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Again, each one of those are consecutive to each other. as to count seven, aggravated arson in violation of 2C17-1A, a secondderee offense. I sent into the custody of the commissioner, Department of Corrections for a period of 18 years, subject to the No Early Release Act. Um, which means that you must serve 85% of that 18-year sentence. There's also on that offense because it's a near offense, even though it's inapplicable, you would have a three-year parole uh supervision uh if you were released, but that will never happen in this case.

[01:11:26]There's a $100 VCCO penalty, a $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Uh and again, the same jail credit. The reason why for the $100 VCCO there is because that is for the Colts Neck residents.

[01:11:40]Count eight, aggravated arson in violation of 2C17-1A, a seconddegree offense. I sentence you to custody of the commissioner of Department of Corrections for a period of 18 years, subject to the no early release act, meaning that you have to serve uh 85% of 18 years before you be eligible for parole. Uh that is run consecutive to the four life terms that I just gave you. There's a $50 VCCO and a $75 NA safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Again, the same jail credit. As to count 13, theft in violation of 2C20-3, a secondderee crime. I sentence you the custody of the commissioner of the Department of Corrections for a period of 18 years. There's a $50 VCCO and a 7 $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. again. So that will run consecutive to the 18 years I gave you on the arson and also the four life terms that I've given you. As to count 14, mislication of entrusted property in violation of 2C 21-15, a secondderee crime, I sentence you to custody of the commissioner of Department of Corrections for a period of 18 years. Uh there's a $50 VCCO, $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Um and that will run concurrent to count 13.

[01:12:59]Count 15, hindering hindering your own apprehension for the murders in this case in violation of 2C29-3B1, a thirdderee offense. I sentence you to custody of the commissioner Department of Corrections for a period of four years. There's a $50 VCCO, $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Again, that will run concurrent with the same jail credit. Pound 16 hindering apprehension dealing with the theft and the mislication of entrusted uh property in violation of 2C29-3B1, a thirdderee offense. I sent you to the custody of the commissioner, Department of Corrections for a period of four years. There's a $50 VCCO, a $75 safe neighborhood assessment penalty. Again, that is to run concurrent on all counts.

[01:13:47]Today, defendants's greed, manipulation, and selfish conduct ends.

[01:13:55]His address will forever be the Department of Corrections. His only reality is confinement, consequence, and accountability.

[01:14:05]Punishment is paramount, and the court imposes it without any hesitation.

[01:14:11]While defendant will not acknowledge his behavior and wrongdoing, a jury of his peers did. And this court now imposes a sentence that fully reflects the verdict and the gravity of these offenses.

[01:14:27]Although more than seven years passed before this matter reached trial due to COVID pre-trial uh litigation and the complexity of these proceedings, justice delayed is not justice denied. You are no longer Paul Canero. You are an intimate number in the Department of Corrections. You are a quadruple murderer who slaughtered innocent children. That is your identity. That is the identity you will carry for the remainder of your life behind prison walls, confined to a 4ft by 7 foot cell until your final breath. That's the sentence I'm imposing here. 45 days from today's date to file an appeal of this sentence. If you miss the 45day deadline, you can get a 30-day uh good cause extension if you can show good cause. If you cannot show good cause, you'll be losing your right to an appeal. You also have 5 years from today's date to file a postconviction relief. I have the appeals right form that has been signed by the defendant and by uh Miss Mastone. Um prosecutor, anything else?

[01:15:38]You can state have anything to add?

[01:18:52]>> That will be dismissed.

[01:18:54]Thank you all.

[01:18:59]All right.

[01:19:14]Happy Everything.