In State v. Johnson, 325 N.J. Super. 78, 737 A.2d 1140 (App.Div.1999), certif. granted, 163 N.J. 393, 749 A.2d 367 (2000) the defendant was charged with robbery of two customers of a check cashing establishment on successive days and with possession of a firearm when he was arrested a week later. Id. at 83, 737 A.2d 1140. The counts relating to the separate victims were severed. At his first trial the jury found Johnson guilty of possession of a weapon when he was arrested but was unable to agree on the other charges. After a separate jury trial for charges relating to the other victim, Johnson was found guilty of first degree robbery as well as second degree unlawful possession of a weapon. In a consolidated sentencing proceeding, the judge applied NERA for the first degree robbery conviction and for both of the second degree weapons convictions. Id. at 88, 737 A.2d 1140. An eleven-count indictment was returned against defendant accusing him of related crimes arising out of his alleged robbery of two customers of a check-cashing establishment on successive days and his possession of a firearm when he was arrested a week later. Following two jury trials, a judgment of conviction was entered resulting in a verdict of guilt of one of the charges of first-degree robbery; one charge of second-degree possession of a firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against a person; and two charges of third-degree possession of a firearm without a permit. Id. at 81, 737 A.2d 1140. Defendant was sentenced to a base term of eighteen years on the first-degree crime and to concurrent maximum base terms on the other three. Id. at 81-82, 737 A.2d 1140. Because the first-degree crime was a crime of violence as defined under the NERA, a parole ineligibility term of eighty-five percent of the base term was imposed specifically fifteen years, three months and eighteen days. Id. at 82, 737 A.2d 1140. A parole ineligibility term of eighty-five percent under NERA was also imposed on the second-degree weapons possession crime, and maximum parole ineligibility periods were imposed on the two third-degree crimes. The Court held NERA did not apply to the possession offense. The Court remanded for re-sentencing on the conviction of second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, saying we think it plain that a purely possessory crime does not meet this definition. One cannot by mere possession with an unlawful purpose be deemed to have actually caused either death or serious bodily injury or used or threatened the immediate use of a deadly weapon. These are certainly elements of the robberies for which defendant was indicted and, certainly, threat of use of a deadly weapon was an element of the robbery of which defendant was convicted. But they are not elements of the purely possessory crime. A defendant must do more than have the intent to use the weapon unlawfully against the person of another before he meets the statutory definition of a violent criminal. We agree with the holding in State v. Thomas, 322 N.J. Super. 512, 518, 731 A.2d 532 (App.Div.1999) that the No Early Release Act must be strictly construed. Under that canon of construction, we are satisfied that purely possessory crimes must be excluded from its reach. We therefore vacate the sentence imposed on the second-degree possessory crime and remand for re-sentencing on that conviction alone.Id. at 89-90, 737 A.2d 1140.