STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PAUL SUAREZ

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3165-04T23165-04T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PAUL SUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 29, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Middlesex County, No. 03-12-1651-I.

Ronald Aronds, attorney for appellant.

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Simon Louis Rosenbach,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, defendant, Paul Suarez, pled guilty to count three of Indictment No. 03-12-1651-I, which charged first degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. The plea agreement provided for sentencing within the range for second degree offenses, and the judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for nine years with parole ineligibility for eighty-five percent of the term imposed pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

On appeal, Suarez offers the following argument:

POINT I

THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN AN IMPROPER SENTENCE UNDER THE NO EARLY RELEASE ACT, N.J.S. 2C:43-7.2c

POINT II

THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN AN IMPROPER SENTENCE UNDER THE PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCE STATUTE, N.J.S. 2C:44-1f.(c)

POINT III

THE DEFENDANT PLED TO COMMITTING A CRIMINAL ACT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY AS HAVING BEEN COMMITTED BY A DIFFERENT CO-DEFENDANT, THEREBY MAKING THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA INVALID.

POINT IV

THE FACTS OF TWO DIFFERENT ROBBERIES ARE MIXED TOGETHER IN THE INDICTMENT, THEREBY MAKING THE INDICTMENT INVALID.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Nonetheless, we add the following comments.

As to Point I, we note that the defendant was asked during the plea hearing if he understood that a five year period of parole supervision would be imposed, and he answered yes. The record also shows that he was clearly told that although he was being sentenced for a first degree crime, the State had agreed to reduce the range to that available for second degree crimes. Although the judgment at one point states that parole will be for three years, at another point it properly says five years, which is what the judge orally imposed. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

As to Point II, we note that the judge found aggravating factors 3, 6, and 9, which are supported by the record, and no mitigating factors. There is no basis for our interference with the sentence.

As to Points III and IV, the allegations contained in the indictment are no longer material. Defendant's concession during the plea hearing that he intentionally acted as the lookout for this armed robbery, and later shared in its spoils, provided more than sufficient evidence of defendant's guilty of the crime charged.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3165-04T2

December 12, 2005