STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NUR-RAHEEM PACK (96-05-0778, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2634-18
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
NUR-RAHEEM PACK,
a/k/a NUR R. PACK, BOO
and RAHEEM PACK,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted April 12, 2021 – Decided May 4, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 96-05-0778.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Alicia J. Hubbard, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After a 1997 jury trial, defendant Nur-Raheem Pack was found guilty of
murder and other criminal acts. He was a seventeen-year-old juvenile at the
time of his offenses. The trial court imposed upon him a life sentence, subject
to a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant's ensuing efforts on direct appeal and postconviction relief
("PCR") to set aside his conviction or reduce his sentence were unsuccessful.
See State v. Pack, No. A-2864-97 (App. Div. Feb. 3, 2000) (affirming
defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal), certif. denied, 164 N.J.
560 (2000); State v. Pack, No. A-3787-00 (App. Div. Nov. 21, 2002) (affirming
first denial of PCR), certif. denied, 176 N.J. 280 (2003); State v. Pack, No. A-
3486-09 (App. Div. June 7, 2011) (affirming subsequent denial of PCR).
Defendant moved for relief from his sentence in the trial court, arguing
his minimum thirty-year period of incarceration unconstitutionally fails to take
into account the so-called "youth factors" applicable to certain juvenile
offenders under the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460 (2012). The trial court rejected his contentions, first in a written
opinion issued by Judge Martha T. Royster on June 1, 2016. Following the New
Jersey Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Zuber, 227 N.J. 422 (2017)
A-2634-18
2
(implementing the Miller decision in this state for eligible juvenile offenders),
defendant renewed his motion for relief, which Judge Sheila A. Venable denied
in a written opinion on June 25, 2018.
On appeal, defendant's letter brief 1 presents the following argument for
our consideration:
POINT I
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MR. PACK'S ARGUMENT
THAT HIS SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY
IMPOSED WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO
CONSIDER THAT HE WAS A CHILD AT THE TIME
OF THE OFFENSE
We affirm. The holding in Miller does not apply to defendant because his
custodial term with a thirty-year parole disqualifier is not the functional
equivalent of a life-without-parole ("LWOP") sentence. See State v. Tormasi,
466 N.J. Super. 51, 66 (App. Div. 2021); see also State v. Bass, 457 N.J. Super.
1, 13-14 (App. Div. 2018).
Despite an invitation by the Court in Zuber, 227 N.J. at 452, for the
Legislature to consider measures that would extend the Miller factors and
1
We decline to comment on the argument presented for the first time in
defendant's reply brief concerning his sentence. See State v. Lenihan, 219 N.J.
251, 265 (2014). In any event, that argument appears to overlap with the
argument in the initial brief.
A-2634-18
3
require post-sentencing review of lengthy prison terms imposed on juvenile
offenders, the Legislature thus far has not done so. Nor has the Supreme Court
mandated such an expansion of the law. Hence, the policy arguments raised by
defendant seeking to change or re-interpret the governing law are not
appropriate for this intermediate appellate court. 2
Affirmed.
2
We recognize that on March 26, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certification
in State v. Comer, A-42-20, which presents this issue: "Is N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(b)(1), which mandates a minimum sentence of at least thirty years in prison
without parole for murder, unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders?"
A-2634-18
4