DEBORAH UPCHURCH VS. CITY OF ORANGE TOWNSHIP Â (L-1145-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4291-14T2
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    GREGORY BYRD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Submitted February 7, 2017 – Decided May 8, 2017
    Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No.
    87-10-2132.
    Gregory Byrd, appellant pro se.
    Diane   Ruberton,  Acting   Atlantic   County
    Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mario C.
    Formica, Special Deputy Attorney General/
    Acting Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel
    and on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to correct
    an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(5).                 We affirm.
    A jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A.
    2C:11-2(a)(2)      (count   one),    attempted           murder,    N.J.S.A.     2C:11-
    3(a)(2) (count two), and other offenses arising from a robbery in
    which he shot two victims in the head.
    In 1992, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a
    thirty-year parole disqualifier on the murder charge. The sentence
    challenged in this appeal is the sentence imposed on the attempted
    murder   charge.      The   State    filed      a    motion    to    have    defendant
    sentenced as a persistent offender pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7(a)
    and N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).            The trial court granted the State's
    motion   and   sentenced     defendant     to       an    extended    term     of   life
    imprisonment with a twenty-five year parole disqualifier, to run
    consecutive to the sentence imposed on the murder charge.                            The
    rest   of   the   counts    either   merged         or    resulted    in    concurrent
    sentences.
    We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on direct
    appeal, State v. Byrd, Docket No. A-2982-88 (App. Div. July 9),
    certif. denied, 
    122 N.J. 363
     (1990).                Thereafter, defendant filed
    two petitions for post-conviction relief, the denials of which
    were affirmed on appeal, State v. Byrd, Docket No. A-6002-91 (App.
    Div. Feb. 25), certif. denied, 
    137 N.J. 164
     (1994); State v. Byrd,
    Docket No. A-0597-10 (App. Div. Mar. 13), certif. denied, 
    211 N.J. 608
     (2012).
    Defendant first challenged his sentence in his direct appeal,
    2                                        A-4291-14T2
    arguing it was manifestly excessive.               We noted the trial court's
    findings   "were    amply     supported    by   the      record   [and]   clearly
    justified and warranted the imposition of the parole ineligibility
    terms, the imposition of the extended term and the imposition of
    consecutive terms." State v. Byrd, supra, Docket No. A-2982-88,
    slip op. at 13.
    In April 2015, defendant moved to have the extended term
    sentence imposed on his attempted murder conviction corrected as
    illegal.    R.     3:21-10(b)(5).         Noting    we   affirmed   defendant's
    sentence in his direct appeal, the trial court denied the motion.
    Defendant presents the following arguments:
    POINT I
    THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS MATTER
    TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR PROPER
    SENTENCING   SINCE   APPELLANT   WAS
    UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SENTENCED AS A
    "PERSISTENT OFFENDER" AND SINCE HE
    RECEIVED AN UNREASONABLE SENTENCE
    THAT WAS MANIFESTLY UNJUST.
    POINT II
    THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS
    DISCRETION     IN   IMPOSING     A
    DISCRETIONARY EXTENDED TERM UPON
    APPELLANT    AS   A   PER[]SISTENT
    OFFENDER.
    Defendant argues the lower court erred in denying his motion
    to correct his sentence on the ground that it had already been
    addressed in our decision on his direct appeal because he did not
    3                                   A-4291-14T2
    raise the issue of whether his treatment as a persistent offender
    at sentencing led to an illegal sentence.           He also argues his
    sentence was illegal because the out-of-state convictions used by
    the State to prove he was a persistent offender under N.J.S.A.
    2C:44-3(a) were insufficient.    We disagree.
    "[A]ppeals are taken from orders and judgments and not from
    opinions, oral decisions, informal written decisions, or reasons
    given for the ultimate conclusion."        Do-Wop Corp. v. City of
    Rahway, 
    168 N.J. 191
    , 199 (2001).     Because defendant was properly
    sentenced as a persistent offender, we need not review the trial
    court's reasoning for concluding that sentence should not be
    vacated   as   illegal.   Moreover,   whether   a   sentence   "violates
    sentencing guidelines and legislative policies . . . is a question
    of law which is reviewed de novo." State v. Robinson, 
    217 N.J. 594
    , 604 (2014).
    N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) permits a court to impose an extended
    term of imprisonment if a "defendant has been convicted of a crime
    of the first, second or third degree and is a persistent offender."
    A persistent offender is defined as
    a person who at the time of the commission of
    the crime is 21 years of age or over, who has
    been previously convicted on at least two
    separate occasions of two crimes, committed
    at different times, when he was at least 18
    years of age, if the latest in time of these
    crimes or the date of the defendant’s last
    4                              A-4291-14T2
    release from confinement, whichever is later,
    is within 10 years of the date of the crime
    for which the defendant is being sentenced.
    [Ibid.]
    A   prior   conviction     includes    "[a]     conviction    in    another
    jurisdiction . . . if a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 6
    months was authorized under the law of the other jurisdiction."
    N.J.S.A. 2C:44-4(c).
    Defendant's convictions in Maryland resulted from crimes
    committed on March 1, 1983, May 2, 1986, and December 23, 1986
    while defendant was twenty-one, twenty-four, and twenty-five years
    old, respectively.       All three crimes were committed within ten
    years of January 8, 1987, the date of the attempted murder for
    which defendant was sentenced, and resulted in sentences greater
    than six months of imprisonment.          Therefore, defendant's criminal
    record provided a proper basis for him to be a persistent offender.
    N.J.S.A.   2C:44-3(a).     As    a   result,   the    trial   judge     had   the
    authority,    pursuant    to    N.J.S.A.    2C:43-7(a)(2),        to    sentence
    defendant to an extended term on his first-degree attempted murder
    conviction.
    Affirmed.
    5                                  A-4291-14T2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4921-14T3

Filed Date: 6/12/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021