STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AARON CHANDLER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3462-03T43462-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AARON CHANDLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted September 20, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No.

85-05-2096.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Mark Zavotsky, Designated Counsel,

on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney

for respondent (Kenneth P. Ply, Special Deputy

Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

In this appeal from the denial of his third petition for post-conviction relief, Aaron Chandler contends that he was eligible for commutation and work credits and that the denial of those credits violated his rights under the due process and ex post facto clauses of the constitutions of New Jersey and the United States.

In 1986, Chandler was convicted of felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(3), and other offenses, and sentenced to an aggregate term of life in prison with thirty years of parole ineligibility. In 2002, the felony murder sentence was reduced to thirty years in prison with thirty years of parole ineligibility. Chandler now claims entitlement to the credits as against this sentence for felony murder.

After considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of Chandler's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge McCormack in his thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion of October 28, 2003. As Judge McCormack noted, the issues raised by Chandler were resolved in Merola v. Department of Corrections, 285 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 1995), and we see no reason for differing with that decision.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3462-03T4

September 28, 2005