On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 93-05-1733.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Winkelstein and LeWinn.
Defendant Jeffrey Pickett appeals from the August 27, 2007 order of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He raises the following arguments for our consideration:
THE SENTENCING COURT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED PETITIONER TO TWO EXTENDED TERMS, BOTH AS A PERSISTENT OFFENDER, AS WELL AS A SECOND GRAVES ACT OFFENDER, ADDITIONALLY, THE GRAVES ACT EXTENDED TERM IS ILLEGAL, ABSENT OF [SIC] THE PROOF THAT THE WEAPON USED IN THE PRIOR CONVICTION WAS A FIREARM. THUS, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON DEFENDANT IS ILLEGAL AND MUST BE CORRECTED.
(a). MOTION TO AMEND THE FINDINGS BY THE COURT TO QUESTION THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO R. 1:7-4, (b). THE SENTENCING COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL and HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, (c). THE LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER, IS EXCESSIVE AND VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PUNISHMENT FOR INCHOATE CRIMES, UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:5-4(2).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that defendant's arguments are "without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion," and we affirm. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only the following brief comments.
In May 1993, defendant was indicted for multiple offenses, including first-degree attempted murder in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1. Defendant was tried to a jury in January 1994 and was convicted on all counts. The sentencing court determined that defendant was extended-term eligible, either as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), or as a second Graves Act offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(d).
Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate life term with a thirty- year period of parole ineligibility. We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence in an unreported opinion. In that appeal, defendant raised numerous challenges to his sentence, including the following argument:
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY IMPLIED [SIC] THE EXTENDED TERM IN ABSEN[CE] OF A PRIOR GRAVES ACT CONVICTION, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AS ...