STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BOMANI AFRICA A/K/A BAXTER RANDOLPH KEYS
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0176-05T10176-05T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BOMANI AFRICA A/K/A
BAXTER RANDOLPH KEYS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________
Submitted October 5, 2006 - Decided October 25, 2006
Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County,
Indictment Nos. 85-12-1279-I, 85-12-1313-I,
85-12-1328-I, I-124-85B, 85-11-1238-I.
Bomani Africa, appellant pro se.
James F. Avigliano, Passaic County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent
(Christopher W. Hsieh, Senior Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Bomani Africa, a/k/a Baxter Randolph Keys, was convicted on three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of drug distribution in April 1986. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of fifty years, with a twenty-five-year period of parole ineligibility.
On July 22, 2005, defendant filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(1), seeking to be transferred to a drug rehabilitation treatment program. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that defendant was not eligible to apply for such relief until he has completed serving the period of parole ineligibility. Defendant now appeals from this ruling. We affirm.
As a threshold issue, we note that defendant's motion fails to state a basis justifying his transfer to a drug treatment program, even absent the legal impediment relied on by the motion judge. Although in his motion papers defendant claims he has taken drugs in the past, by his own admission he has not used any illicit drugs since 1999. Thus, as a matter of basic logic, he cannot claim that he is in need of treatment for a nonexistent addiction. In this light, we need not consider whether defendant's motion is not otherwise cognizable because he has not completed the period of parole ineligibility. See State v. Brown, 384 N.J. Super. 191, 194 (App. Div. 2006).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-0176-05T1
October 25, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.