STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JENNIFER NODA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4528-04T54528-04T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JENNIFER NODA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

 

Argued March 7, 2006 - Decided March 20, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part,

Somerset County, 03-02-00070.

Paul Condon argued the cause for

appellant.

James L. McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor,

argued the cause for respondent (Wayne J.

Forrest, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. McConnell, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged in Somerset County with one count of second-degree conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and one count of second-degree attempted burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2a(1), and N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2b. On July 17, 2004, without the benefit of a plea agreement, she pled guilty to the indictment. On April 1, 2005, the sentencing judge denied defendant's application to be sentenced "to a term appropriate to a crime of one degree lower than that of the crime" to which she pled guilty. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f(2). The judge imposed concurrent five-year custodial terms with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA TO ATTEMPTED BURGLARY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A FACTUAL BASIS.

POINT II

DEFENDANT RENOUNCED HER PARTICIPATION IN THE OFFENSE.

POINT III

THE COURT'S SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS SUBJECT TO THE NO EARLY RELEASE ACT WAS EXCESSIVE.

We have carefully considered the record and evaluated the arguments advanced with respect to Points I and II. We conclude that neither argument has sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Our role in evaluating defendant's claim that her sentence was excessive is quite narrow. Although an appellate court has the authority to review sentences, the power to do so must be "used only sparingly: when trial courts are 'clearly mistaken' and 'the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." State v. Jarbeth, 114 N.J. 394, 410 (1989) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). We cannot say that this sentence was clearly mistaken.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4528-04T5

March 20, 2006