of circumstances justify a downgrade in the interest of justice, the Court specifically noted that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-lf(2) contains “no reference to the defendant’s character or condition.” Supra, 143 N.J. at 499, 673 A.2d 259. Our reading of these cases leads us to conclude that circumstances such as a defendant’s overall character or contributions to the community should not be considered under the interest of justice prong in the determination of whether or not to downgrade a sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f(2). This is an offense-oriented provision. Characteristics or behavior of the offender are applicable only as they relate to the offense itself and give fuller context to the offense circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Read, 397 N.J.Super. 598, 613-14, 938 A.2d 953 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 196 N.J. 85, 951 A.2d 1038
holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict an accomplice who was  present as a lookout at the scene and who played a critical supportive role in the armed robbery by acting as a driver of a secondary vehicle holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that a downgrade for a juvenile who pled guilty to firstdegree robbery was not warranted because although the defendant acted as the lookout while his confederate committed the robbery we see no basis for characterizing defendants role as only secondary  and no evidence of the kind of psychological impairment that would be relevant to this determination