decision, ‘[a]n appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.’ ” 175 N.J. at 386, 815 A.2d 432 (quoting State v. Johnson, 118 N.J. 10, 15, 570 A.2d 395 (1990)); see also Roth, supra, 95 N.J. at 365, 471 A.2d 370. Our “appellate courts are expected to exercise a vigorous and close review for abuses of discretion by the trial courts.” Jarbath, supra, 114 N.J. at 401, 555 A.2d 559. However, they are “bound to affirm a sentence, even if [they] would have arrived at a different result, as long as the trial court properly identifies and balances aggravating and mitigating factors that are supported by competent credible evidence in the record.” State v. O’Donnell, 117 N.J. 210, 215, 564 A.2d 1202 (1989); see also Roth, supra, 95 N.J. at 364-65, 471 A.2d 370 (<HOLDING>). Removing the presumptive terms and preserving
holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding that appellate court may not overturn sentence unless the application of the guidelines to the facts of the case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable