In State v. Shaw, 131 N.J. 1, 618 A.2d 294 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor can waive a minimum term on the condition that defendant appear for sentencing. Id. at 9, 618 A.2d 294. However, if defendant fails to appear for sentencing, the judge should not automatically impose the minimum term. Id. at 16, 618 A.2d 294. Instead, the judge must determine whether the non-appearance in court is material to the plea agreement and warrants revocation of the waiver of mandatory sentence. Id. at 17, 618 A.2d 294. The Court considered the validity of the type of plea agreement involved in this case, under which a prosecutor's waiver of the period of parole ineligibility mandated by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 is conditioned upon the defendant voluntarily appearing for sentencing. The Court concluded that such an agreement is valid because it "fosters . . . several law enforcement purposes set forth in the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act, including facilitation, where feasible, of the rehabilitation of drug-dependent persons, minimization of pretrial delay, prompt disposition of drug-related criminal charges, and swift imposition of fair and certain punishment." Id. at 15, 618 A.2d 294. However, the Court also concluded that "not every violation of the waiver conditions by an accused defendant will result in automatic imposition of a mandatory sentence." Id. at 16, 618 A.2d 294. Instead, the trial court must "consider the explanation for the non-appearance in the context of all the circumstances," and whether in light of those circumstances, "the breach is material to the plea and therefore warrants revocation of the prosecutor's waiver of mandatory sentence." Id. at 17, 618 A.2d 294. Of particular significance to the argument defendant presents in this appeal, the Court also stated: "We do not expect that a requirement that a defendant show up for sentencing be routinely stated as a basis for granting waiver of the otherwise-mandatory minimum sentences." Id. at 15, 618 A.2d 294. Consequently, the Court concluded that to be valid, guidelines for the prosecutor's inclusion of no appearance/no waiver provisions in plea bargain offers must be "integrated under the Vasquez guidelines." Id. at 3, 618 A.2d 294. The Court also noted that "the guidelines do not now incorporate the no-appearance factor in the weighing process," and that "if prosecutors intend to employ this factor in the decision-making process, it will have to be incorporated in the guidelines." Id. at 18-19, 618 A.2d 294.