163, 171, 869 A.2d 473 (App.Div.) (citing State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 342-43, 471 A.2d 370 (1984)), certif. denied, 183 N.J. 592, 874 A.2d 1109 (2005). Consequently, the State can appeal the sentence of a criminal defendant only in two circumstances: (1) if a statute expressly authorizes such an appeal, and (2) if the sentence is illegal. Roth, supra, 95 N.J. at 342-43, 471 A.2d 370. In Roth, our Supreme Court traced the history of the government’s right to appeal criminal sentences, and held that because of constitutional double jeopardy concerns, “the government cannot take an appeal in a criminal case absent express statutory authority.” Id. at 341-43, 471 A.2d 370; see also United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 131-32, 101 S.Ct. 426, 434-35, 66 L.Ed.2d 328, 342-43 (1980) (<HOLDING>); State v. Veney, 327 N.J.Super. 458, 461, 743
recognizing the specific need for an appropriate double jeopardy review when an appeal is taken by the state from a lower courts dismissal of the criminal charges holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the government may appeal trial courts dismissal of count in indictment because of prejudice caused by preindictment delay without violating double jeopardy principles holding that the government may appeal a postverdict ruling without violating double jeopardy where the appeal does not result in a new trial holding that the government could appeal a criminal sentence without violating the double jeopardy clause when congress expressly authorized such an appeal