NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 15, 2010 - Decided Before Judges Kestin and Newman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 07-01-0120.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Susan Brody, Assistant Deputy Pubic Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen E. Raymond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Defendant, Robert D. Brown, appeals from a judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed. The conviction reflected the verdict after a jury trial on charges of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a(2); second-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; and third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b. The jury found defendant guilty of all these charges. A fourth charge, possession of a firearm by a convicted person, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b, a crime of the second degree, had been dismissed.
The trial court denied the State's motion for an extended-term sentence on the basis that it could "fashion an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of this case within the first-degree sentencing range." On the first-degree conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for nineteen years with eighty-five percent parole ineligibility. Concurrent terms of imprisonment for eight years and four years were assigned on the second- and third-degree convictions, respectively.
In counsel's brief on appeal, defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:
DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS IRREPARABLY PREJUDICED WHEN THE COURT DENIED HIS MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO HIS ANGRY OUTBURST IN THE COURTROOM.
THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO MERGE THE SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE INTO THAT ON COUNT TWO. (Not raised below.) [sic]
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE UNDER ALL APPLICABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
In a pro se supplemental brief, defendant argues:
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF SPEEDY TRIAL BY 21 MONTHS OF OPPRESSIVE, PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT, IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, WHEREFORE THE CONVICTION ...