August 6, 2007
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
JAMEEL H. PARROTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 02-10-01301.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted July 17, 2007
Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.
Defendant Jameel H. Parrott entered into a plea agreement with the State through which he pled guilty to one count of second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and one count of third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1). The court sentenced defendant to an eight-year term, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
At the plea hearing, the trial court questioned defendant directly, and confirmed defendant's understanding of the terms of the plea agreement, including the penal consequences of pleading guilty to a NERA offense. Defendant also executed, with the assistance of defense counsel, the plea forms, including the Supplemental Plea Form for NERA Cases, approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The supplemental NERA form contains a specific question apprising defendant of the mandatory three-year term of parole supervision "that will begin as soon as you complete the sentence of incarceration." Defendant circled "yes" in this section of the form, indicating that he was aware of and understood this particular ramification of his guilty plea.
At the sentencing hearing, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that there was an insufficient factual basis to sustain his conviction for second-degree burglary. Judge Deborah J. Venezia denied the motion. She thereafter sentenced defendant consistent with the plea agreement.
On direct appeal of the sentence, we remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the sentence imposed in light of State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005). After considering the legal guidelines in Natale, Judge Venezia imposed the same sentence. Defendant now appeals raising the following arguments:
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.
THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE.
Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We are satisfied that defendant was informed of all of the penal consequences of his conviction at the time he agreed to plead guilty. The sentence imposed by the court is well-supported by the record, and within the trial court's statutory authority. State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.