STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TYRONE BARNES
Annotate this CaseNOT 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.