Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Todd

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


April 4, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT T. TODD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 98-09-1805.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 8, 2008

Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.

Defendant Robert T. Todd appeals from the sentence imposed by Judge Roma on March 10, 2006, committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of eight years, with three years of parole ineligibility. The sentence was predicated on defendant's eligibility for an extended term as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), after his conviction on three counts of third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and one count of third-degree theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. Judge Roma imposed this sentence pursuant to our remand order in State v. Robert T. Todd, Docket No. A-5314-03T4, (App. Div. Dec. 13, 2005) (slip op at 3-12).

Defendant now appeals raising the following arguments.

POINT I

THE EXTENDED TERM SENTENCE IMPOSED SHOULD BE VACATED AS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PROSECUTOR IN A TIMELY MANNER AND ALSO BASED ON THE FAULTY FACT-FINDING BY THE COURT.

POINT II

BECAUSE THE PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCE "PLAYED NO PART" IN THE IMPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE ON APRIL 8, 2004, AND BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S REMAND ORDER OF DECEMBER 13, 2005, DEFENDANT MUST BE SENTENCED ANEW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN STATE V. NATALE AND STATE V. PIERCE.

POINT III

IN ADDITION TO THE CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED ALREADY GRANTED, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR ALL OF THE TIME HE SERVED FROM NOVEMBER 19, 2002 TO FEBRUARY 13, 2004.

The underlying facts pertinent to this appeal are detailed in our December 13, opinion. Todd, supra, No. A-5314-03T4 (slip op. at 3-12). We thus incorporate them by reference here. The arguments raised by defendant here in Points I and II lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). As to Point III, the issue is now moot.

Defendant's judgment of conviction was amended on January 16, 2008, to reflect the correct amount of jail time credit.

Affirmed.

20080404

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.