October 18, 2007
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
JORGE LOPEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, 00-08-2556-I.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 10, 2007
Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.
Defendant, Jorge Lopez, appeals from the order of September 14, 2006, denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, defendant offers the following argument:
POINT ONE THE CONSECUTIVE TERM WITH A PAROLE INELIGIBILITY PERIOD IS GRIEVOUSLY UNEQUAL WHEN COMPARED TO THE TERMS IMPOSED AGAINST THE CO-DEFENDANTS.
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that his arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Meloni in his September 15, 2006, written opinion. Nonetheless, we add the following comments.
While serving a twenty-year term of imprisonment imposed in May 2000, defendant and others tried to escape from prison. They were caught, and defendant pled guilty to third degree conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2. Pursuant to his agreement with the State, defendant received a sentence of imprisonment for three years with one year of parole ineligibility. The sentence was consecutive to the term defendant was then serving.
Defendant contends that his co-defendants received three year concurrent terms and that he was younger then them and had no record. In fact his record was extensive, and he failed to include the criminal records of the other defendants. Moreover, one co-defendant received a concurrent five year sentence and the other received a concurrent four year sentence, not the three year sentences claimed by defendant. Defendant also contends that he played a lesser role than the others in the escape, but that claim is not supported by the record.
Since defendant has failed to establish any substantial disparity, the case on which he relies, State v. Roach, 146 N.J. 208 (1996), provides no support for this appeal.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.