STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAN G. KING (17-07-0612, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5510-16T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAN G. KING, a/k/a
WILLIAM G. KING,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted December 19, 2018 – Decided January 10, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Accusation No. 17-07-
0612.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Al Glimis, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Carol M. Henderson, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Willian G. King appeals from the five-year sentence with a
two-and-one-half year period of parole ineligibility that was imposed following
his guilty plea to third-degree possession with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3). We affirm.
Defendant presents the following arguments for our consideration:
POINT I
THE IMPOSITION OF A DISCRETIONARY
PERIOD OF PAROLE INELIGIBILITY IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURSUANT TO
[1]
ALLEYNE AND MUST BE STRICKEN BY THIS
COURT. THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
RECENTLY GRANTED CERTIFICATION TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE TYPE OF PAROLE
DISQUALIFIER IMPOSED IN THIS CASE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURSUANT TO ALLEYNE.
A. Alleyne's Edict That Any Fact That Increases The
Mandatory Minimum Is An "Element" That Must Be
Submitted To The Jury Appl[i]es To Periods of Parole
Ineligibility.
B. Mr. King's Sentence.
POINT II
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS MATTER SHOULD
BE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING BECAUSE
THE SENTENCING COURT FAILED TO ENGAGE
IN A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
1
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
A-5510-16T3
2
SENTENCING FACTORS IT FOUND; A REMAND
IS ALSO REQUIRED TO CORRECT THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.
We find defendant's substantive arguments to be without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and offer only the
following brief comments.
Defendant argues the court's imposition of a period of parole ineligibility
under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b) is unconstitutional because it deprived him of his
Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Our Supreme Court rejected the
identical argument in State v. Kiriakakis, __ N.J. __, __ (2018) (slip op. at 2-4),
and we find no basis to depart from that ruling here.
Defendant's contention that the court erred by failing to conduct a
qualitative assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors under N.J.S.A.
2C:44-1(a) and (b) is belied by the record. The court found aggravating factors
three, the risk defendant would commit another offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3);
six, the extent and seriousness of defendant's prior record, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1(a)(6); and nine, the need to deter defendant and others from violating the law,
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9), and gave each "significant and great weight." The court
did not find any mitigating factors, see N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(1) to (13), and
determined the aggravating factors "substantially outweigh[ed] the
A-5510-16T3
3
[nonexistent] mitigating" factors. We affirm the sentence because the trial court
followed the sentencing guidelines, its findings of fact and application of
aggravating and mitigating factors is based on competent, credible evidence, and
its "'application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts" does not "shock[] the
judicial conscience." State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014) (quoting State
v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).
We last reject defendant's claim that the judgment of conviction should be
amended because it erroneously lists his first name as "Willian," instead of
"William." The record is devoid of any evidence supporting the assertion.
Defendant may present evidence supporting the claim to the trial court and
request an amendment of the judgment of conviction.
Affirmed.
A-5510-16T3
4