STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHEN A. PILGRIM

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2722-05T12722-05T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN A. PILGRIM,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 24, 2006 - Decided November 8, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and Axelrad.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, 91-08-03862-I.

Stephen A. Pilgrim, 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

This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. We affirm.

In 1992, at the conclusion of a bench trial, during which it was proved that defendant shot the victim, defendant was convicted of aggravated manslaughter and weapons offenses. Because the judge found that this was defendant's second conviction for an offense involving a firearm, he imposed a mandatory extended term of life imprisonment under the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3d, and N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7c, with a twenty-five year parole ineligibility period. The judgment was affirmed. State v. Pilgrim, No. A-3911-93T4 (App. Div. November 28, 1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 518 (1996). Defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief was denied in 1997, and the ensuing appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. State v. Pilgrim, No. A-4316-99T4 (App. Div. October 2, 2001), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 42 (2002).

The instant appeal arose from a motion defendant filed in 2005, demanding correction of what he alleged was an illegal and unconstitutional sentence. Essentially, defendant argued that his sentence violated State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 516 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE "PIPELINE RETROACTIVITY" SHOULD BE RELAXED ACCORDING TO: STATE v. FRANKLIN CITING [SIC] U.S. v. BOOKER, AND CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO: TEAQUE v. LANE, WHICH REQUIRES A LIMITED REMAND.

POINT II

JUDGE F. MICHAEL GILES, [SIC] FAILED TO CONSIDER LEGAL PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, REGARDING THE EXTENDED TERM UNDER THE GRAVES ACT [SIC].

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that defendant'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 Giles in his letter opinion of December 19, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2722-05T1

November 8, 2006