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 of New Jersey v. Samuel Ryan

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


December 14, 2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SAMUEL RYAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 96-04-0511.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued December 5, 2012

Before Judges Axelrad and Nugent.

Defendant Samuel Ryan is serving two concurrent life sentences without parole. A court imposed the sentences in 1997 under the "Three Strikes Law," N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1, after a jury convicted defendant of armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 2C:5-1; and other offenses that the court subsequently merged with the robbery and attempted murder convictions. In this appeal, defendant challenges the January 13, 2012 Law Division order that denied without an evidentiary hearing his tenth petition for post- conviction relief (PCR). He raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

SINCE THE THREE-STRKES LIFE-TERM SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WAS IMPOSED AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXTENDED-TERM SENTENCE OF [SIXTY] YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, IT VIOLATED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE EXTENDED-TERM SENTENCES PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:45-5(a)(2) AND THEREFORE IS ILLEGAL

POINT II

SINCE DEFENDANT HAS SHOWN THAT HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS EXPOSURE TO THE THREE-STRIKES LIFE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE DURING TWO PLEA OFFERS, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF THAT HE WAS INFORMED OF THAT EXTREME SENTENCE, HE SHOULD BE GIVEN NEW TRIALS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD-STRIKE CHARGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL PLEA OFFER

Judge Richard J. Geiger, who denied defendant's tenth PCR petition, explained his decision in an oral opinion he delivered from the bench on January 13, 2012, the same day he entered the order. We affirm, substantially for the reasons given by Judge Geiger in his well-reasoned oral decision. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20121214

© 1992-2012 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.