January 12, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
FRANK PADRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 86-01-016.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted: January 5, 2011
Before Judges Cuff and Simonelli.
Defendant Frank Padro is serving an aggregate life term in prison without possibility of parole for an armed robbery of a jewelry store in January 2003. The sentence defendant is serving is a mandatory life term without parole pursuant to the Persistent Offender Accountability Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1a.
Defendant appeals from the March 25, 2010 order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence and to vacate a 1987 guilty plea to armed robbery, one of the predicate armed robberies for defendant's current term of imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT MR. PADRO'S PETITION WAS TIME BARRED IN ALLEGING THAT HIS SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL (not raised below).
THE LOWER COURT'S ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES, IN WRITING THE OPINION, AND THE CITING OF FACTS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD OF ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN VIEWED CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR RULING (not raised below).
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT APPELLANT'S PLEA WAS KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY GIVEN, AND THAT DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE VACATED BECAUSE A FACTUAL BASIS WAS PROVIDED FROM WHICH TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY (not raised below).
A. THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT APPELLANT'S PLEA WAS KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY GIVEN.
B. THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE VACATED BECAUSE A FACTUAL BASIS WAS PROVIDED FROM WHICH TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR WHEN IMPOSING THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE ON THE BASIS OF A FOREIGN CONVICTION (not raised below).
We have thoroughly examined the record and the arguments presented by defendant. We also have the benefit of a comprehensive opinion rendered by Judge Richard Geiger. We conclude that none of the arguments presented by defendant have sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Geiger in his March 25, 2010 opinion.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.