STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TYRONE BARNES

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5863-06T55863-06T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TYRONE BARNES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________

 

Submitted February 10, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No.

93-04-1548.

Tyrone Barnes, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a June 25, 2007 order of the Law Division, which denied his motion "to correct [an] illegal sentence." Defendant presents the following arguments in support of his appeal:

POINT I: THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED

CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR BY FAILING

TO REVIEW, RESOLVE AND ADDRESS

APPELLANT'S MERGER OF CONVIC-

TIONS CLAIM THAT WAS COGNIZABLE

UNDER A[] POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

APPLICATION, THUS SUMMARY DIS-

POSITION SHOULD BE GRANTED.

POINT II: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING

A PAROLE DISQUALIFIER ON TOP

OF A PRESUMPTIVE TERM, WITHOUT

STATING REASONS, DESPITE THE

15-YEAR PRESUMPTIVE TERM ALONE,

WOULD HAVE CLEARLY SATISFIED THE

GRAVES ACT.

POINT III: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENY-

ING COUNSEL, BECAUSE THE RECORD PROVE[S] THAT COUNSEL WAS IN FACT ASSIGNED OVER TWO-MONTHS PRIOR TO JUDGE ARBITRARY DENYING PCR PETITION. THUS, APPELLANT HAS DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE.

POINT IV: THE STATE DID NOT OPPOSE, CONTEST

OR CHALLENGE APPELLANT'S PETITION

TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE AT

THE LAW DIVISION, THEREFORE THIS

COURT SHOULD ACCEPT APPELLANT'S

CLAIM AS UNOPPOSED, AND IN VIOLA-

TION OF RULE 3:22-9.

 
We affirm the order denying defendant's motion sub-stantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kennedy's June 25, 2007 written opinion. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5863-06T5

February 27, 2009

 


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.