STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERALD C. BAKARICH

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1775-05T21775-05T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GERALD C. BAKARICH,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 29, 2006 - Decided December 11, 2006

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Messano.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 81-10-1061.

Gerald C. Bakarich, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Leslie-Ann M. Justus, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In 1981, defendant was indicted and charged with second-degree attempted sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(3) and N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(5). He entered a guilty plea in exchange for the downgrading of the charged offense to a third-degree offense for sentencing purposes. On May 29, 1982, defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed five years at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center.

Defendant appealed. We granted the State's motion to summarily affirm in an order entered on January 10, 1984, finding the defendant's sole argument on appeal -- that the sentence was punitive and excessive -- to be clearly without merit.

Defendant unsuccessfully petitioned for post-conviction relief in 1984, claiming the sentence was illegal. The trial court has since considered and denied defendant's motions for relief from his Megan's Law registration requirements and his reclassification from Tier II to Tier I for Megan's Law notification purposes.

Defendant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, which the judge denied on August 29, 2005. The judge held that the petition failed to provide a factual or legal basis upon which relief could be granted, and that the petition failed to assert any exceptional circumstances so as to permit its consideration so many years after entry of the judgment of conviction.

Defendant has now appealed the denial of his second petition for post-conviction relief, asserting arguments regarding the police interrogation methods in this case, the plea agreement and the sentence imposed. After carefully examining the record on appeal in light of the arguments raised, we agree with the trial judge that the petition was untimely and that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1775-05T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

December 11, 2006