Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Davis

November 4, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROOSEVELT DAVIS, N/K/A KHABIR UMDABBADAH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 98-12-4818, 98-12-4822, 98-12-4826, 98-12-4828, 98-12-4830 and 98-10-4175.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 13, 2009

Before Judges Reisner and Chambers.

Defendant Roosevelt Davis*fn1 appeals from the trial court order of January 5, 2009, denying his motion for a change in custody and a reduction in his sentence. We affirm.

On September 12, 2000, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to six indictments for armed robbery and related weapons offenses. The plea agreement provided that the prosecutor would not recommend a sentence in excess of twenty-three and one-half years and that the sentence would be subject to the mandatory periods of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and the Graves Act N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6. On October 27, 2000, defendant was sentenced to a term of twenty years in prison subject to NERA's eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. His sentence was affirmed on appeal by order dated April 16, 2002. State v. Davis, No. A-1276-01 (App. Div. April 16, 2002). The Supreme Court denied certification on July 12, 2002. State v. Davis, 174 N.J. 192 (2002).

In February 2008, defendant moved before the trial court for a change of custody for admission into a drug and alcohol abuse treatment and therapy program pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b) and for a reduction in his sentence. The trial court denied the application for a change of custody on the basis that it could not be considered by the court until defendant had served the mandatory portion of his sentence. The trial court denied the application for a reduction of his sentence because it was untimely.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY SINCE DEFENDANT'S NERA TERM IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM STATUTORILY MANDATED TERM FOR FIRST-DEGREE ROBBERY.

POINT II

DEFENDANT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF CUSTODY TO PERMIT ENTRY INTO A DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY.

POINT III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT DEFENDANT A REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BASED UPON HIS REHABILITATIVE . . . EFFORTS, THE REAL-TIME CONSEQUENCES OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AND THE FAILURE OF THE COURT AND COUNSEL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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