STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CURTIS DENT, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-7105-03T17105-03T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CURTIS DENT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted September 13, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Lefelt and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Union County,

Indictment No. 01-12-1454.

Maynard & Truland, attorneys for appellant

(Joe B. Truland, Jr., on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

After defendant, Curtis Dent, pled guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to first-degree robbery, Judge Malone sentenced him to ten years imprisonment with application of the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendant appeals from Judge Malone's order, which precluded defendant from withdrawing his guilty plea.

Defendant argues that a "manifest injustice" under R. 3:21-1 was caused when the judge failed to permit the withdrawal. Defendant claims that at the time of his plea, he was confused and coerced, did not understand the NERA consequences of the proposed sentence, and believed that by cooperating with the prosecution his sentence would be further reduced. Furthermore, defendant claims to have been under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Unfortunately for defendant, the record of his guilty plea does not support these arguments. Instead, it shows that defendant's plea was made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea. R. 3:9-2, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 443 (1999). Nothing in the transcript reveals any confusion or coercion.

Defendant agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the State's agreement to recommend a ten-year custodial term subject to NERA. The plea agreement form, without promising any further sentence reduction, required defendant "to provide a sworn statement and cooperate and testify in trials of others involved." The judge specifically advised defendant that, under the deal, he would be required to serve 85 percent of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Defendant also signed a NERA form corroborating his understanding of the parole ineligibility period. Defendant specifically advised the judge that he was not under the influence of "any drugs, alcohol, or prescription medicine," and also admitted that he understood the agreement and that the judge had articulated it correctly. In short, we see no basis whatsoever to reverse Judge Malone's exercise of sound discretion in rejecting defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. State v. Deutsch, 34 N.J. 190, 197-98 (1961).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-7105-03T1

September 21, 2005