STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HUSSEIN DIGGS (98-05-2570, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3088-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HUSSEIN DIGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided July 24, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 98-
05-2570.
Hussein Diggs, appellant pro se.
Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Barbara
A. Rosenkrans, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Hussain Diggs appeals from a January 21, 2016
Criminal Part order denying his motion to correct an illegal
sentence. We affirm.
This case has a lengthy procedural history. In 1999, a jury
found defendant guilty of attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second-
degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); possession of
a handgun without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and possession
of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). After
appropriate mergers, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence
of fifty years with eighty-five percent to be served without parole
under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
Defendant appealed and raised the following arguments: (1)
the judge's conduct deprived him of a fair trial; (2) the
prosecutor made improper remarks in her opening and closing
statements; (3) the judge abused his discretion in excluding
evidence of a prosecution witness's criminal conviction; and, (4)
the sentence imposed on the conviction of attempted murder was
manifestly excessive. In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant
argued he was denied the right to confront witnesses against him.
We affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded the case for
resentencing. State v. Diggs, No. A-1225-99 (App. Div. May 8,
2001), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85 (2001). We found the trial
court had improperly imposed NERA's eighty-five percent period of
parole ineligibility on the extended term for attempted murder
rather than on the ordinary term. Id. (slip op. at 11-12). We
2 A-3088-15T1
also noted that N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c) "requires imposition of a
parole disqualifier between one-third and one-half of the base
term.[1] Since defendant's base term is fifty years, the judge may
impose a parole disqualifier up to one-half of that sentence,
i.e., twenty-five years." Ibid.
On remand, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term
of fifty years. The sentence included, on the attempted murder
count, a fifty-year prison term with twenty-five years of parole
ineligibility under the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c).
Defendant did not file an appeal from that sentence.
Thereafter, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction
relief (PCR). He argued:
POINT I
PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS.
POINT II
THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN HEARSAY EVIDENCE WAS
IMPROPER AND DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM.
POINT III
THE COURT'S JURY INSTRUCTION ON IDENTIFICATION
WAS INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE AND DEPRIVED
PETITIONER OF A FAIR TRIAL.
1
The statute has since been amended and the minimum period of
parole ineligibility has been increased. L. 2013, c. 113.
3 A-3088-15T1
POINT IV
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON THE DEFENDANT
FOLLOWING TRIAL AND PETITIONER'S REJECTION OF
A PLEA OFFER, WAS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE
MODIFIED AND REDUCED.
Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Michael A. Petrolle denied
defendant's PCR petition. We affirmed, State v. Diggs, No. A-
0072-10 (App. Div. Oct. 24, 2011), and the Supreme Court denied
certification, 210 N.J. 109 (2012).
In July 2012, defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, which the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied and dismissed. Diggs v. Holmes, No. 12-4357
(D.N.J. June 27, 2013).
On December 15, 2015, defendant filed the motion to correct
an illegal sentence. Judge Petrolle denied the motion on the
ground the Appellate Division had previously decided the issue.
This appeal followed.
Defendant makes the following arguments:
POINT ONE
BECAUSE THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN SUMMARILY
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT AN
ILLEGAL SENTENCE; THE MATTER SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE LAW DIVISION FOR RESENTENCING
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S RULING IN
STATE V. ANDINO, 345 N.J. Super. 35 (2001);
4 A-3088-15T1
STATE V. ALLEN, 337 N.J. Super. 259 (2001);
STATE V. MANZIE, 335 N.J. Super. 267 (2000).2
Defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
2
The Legislature amended NERA to enumerate the first- and second-
degree offenses to which NERA applies. L. 2001, c. 129 (effective
June 29, 2001). The amendment was in response to the Appellate
Division decisions in State v. Manzie, 335 N.J. Super. 267, 276
(2000) (holding NERA does not apply to murder because murder has
a separate sentencing scheme), aff'd, 168 N.J. 113 (2001), State
v. Mosley, 335 N.J. Super. 144, 149 (2000) (holding NERA does not
apply to tender years sexual assaults without physical force),
certif. denied, 167 N.J. 633 (2001), and State v. Thomas, 322 N.J.
Super. 512, 515-16 (1999) (same), aff'd, 166 N.J. 560 (2001).
State v. Parolin, 171 N.J. 223, 232 (2002).
5 A-3088-15T1