STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DUMISANI BANKOLE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-3925-04T33925-04T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Submitted April 25, 2006 - Decided May 8, 2006
Before Judges Skillman and Axelrad.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 1678-08-85.
Dumisani Bankole, appellant, pro se.
Vincent P. Sarubbi, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
On October 10, 1985, defendant was sentenced based on a guilty plea to a charge of robbery to a seven-year term of imprisonment. On November 22, 1985, defendant was sentenced on a separate indictment to an aggregate term of forty-eight years of imprisonment, with twenty-two and a half years of parole ineligibility, to be served consecutively to his seven-year sentence for robbery, based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery and other offenses.
In 1999, the trial court granted defendant's motion for reconsideration of sentence and resentenced him to concurrent five-year terms of probation on both indictments. The grant of probation was conditioned upon defendant's successful completion of a drug treatment program.
In May 2003, the trial court revoked defendant's probation on the ground that he had failed to remain drug free while on probation, having tested positive for cocaine on four separate occasions, and reinstated the sentences originally imposed in 1985.
Thereafter, defendant filed two motions for reconsideration of these sentences, both of which were denied. We affirmed the denial of those motions after hearing argument on our excess sentence calendar, see R. 2:9-11. State v. Bankole, No. A-6874-03T4 (App. Div. Dec. 14, 2004); State v. Bankole, No. A-775-03T4 (App. Div. Dec. 14, 2004). Thereafter, defendant filed petitions for certification to the Supreme Court, which were denied. 185 N.J. 595 (2005).
Shortly after our affirmance of his prior motions for reconsideration, defendant filed what he characterized as a motion for a "private drug evaluation" and another motion "to correct an illegal sentence." The trial court denied both motions by a letter opinion and order entered on February 14, 2005.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY COMBINING AND COLLECTIVELY INTERPRETING DEFENDANTS MOTION(S) TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF STATE V. NATALE II, PURSUANT TO R. 3:22-12 AND A MOTION FOR PRIVATE DRUG EVALUATION PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2A:158-1-25 AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO R. 3:21-10(d).
II. THE TRIAL COURT RESENTENCED DEFENDANT ON MAY 16, 2003 TO AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE BY FAILING TO FOLLOW THE CORRECT SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
Defendant's arguments are clearly without merit and do not warrant any discussion in addition to what is contained in the trial court's prior opinions denying defendant's motions for reconsideration and our December 14, 2004 opinion affirming the denial of those motions. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
May 8, 2006