STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NA'EEM SANTIAGO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NA'EEM SANTIAGO,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

July 21, 2015

Submitted April 14, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Haas and Higbee.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 98-10-2525.

Na'eem Santiago, appellant pro se.

James P. McClain, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Na'eem Santiago, appeals from a November 6, 2013 order denying his motion for a reduction or change in sentence, pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(5). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mark H. Sandson in his concise and clear written opinion of the same date.

Following a jury trial in February 2000, defendant was convicted of conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and (2); felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(3); and, unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the murder of Vaughn Rollins on the evening of October 22, 1996, in the Venice Park section of Atlantic City.1

On March 31, 2000, Judge Michael R. Connor sentenced defendant. The judge merged the felony murder conviction into the murder conviction, and sentenced defendant to life in prison, with a minimum parole ineligibility period of thirty years. Judge Connor also imposed a consecutive, twenty-year sentence with a ten-year parole ineligibility period for the robbery conviction. Defendant received concurrent sentences for the remaining convictions.

In the aggregate, defendant received a life sentence plus twenty years, and was required to serve a minimum of forty years before becoming eligible for parole. He was sixteen-years-old when the crimes were committed, and twenty-years-old when he was sentenced.

Thereafter, defendant filed a direct appeal. We affirmed his sentence and conviction on July 9, 2001; we rejected his arguments that the sentence imposed by Judge Connor was excessive, and that Judge Connor failed to address the appropriate statutory factors, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1. Santiago, supra, (slip op. at 11-12).

On October 10, 2013, defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(5). He argued that his sentence violated N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1, because Judge Connor failed to address the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors, and that the sentence was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court holding in Miller v. Alabama, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012).

On November 6, 2013, Judge Sandson issued an order and accompanying opinion denying defendant's motion. Judge Sandson found that "Judge Connor properly exercised his discretion vested in him to fashion an appropriate sentence," and that defendant's sentence did not violate applicable case law. This appeal followed, where defendant raises the following arguments, which we quote as they appear in his brief

POINT I

The sentence imposed on the Defendant is In violation of his constitutional rights Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Of the united States Constitution, and NJSA 2C:44-1.

POINT II

The sentence imposed on the Defendant is in violation of his Constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 2C:44-1(a) and (b) are in violation of the standard articulated in Miller v. Alabama.

Point III

The Decision of the Lower Court to Deny Appellants Motion to Correct His Illegal Sentence, To Deny His Request for Assignment of Counsel, and to Deny His Request For A Hearing Was Arbitrary, and Should Be Remanded For a Hearing.

We affirm the trial court's rejection of defendant's application, substantially for the reasons cited by Judge Sandson. With regard to defendant's argument that Judge Connor failed to take into consideration the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1, we conclude that this argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). This issue was addressed in our rejection of defendant's direct appeal. Santiago, supra, (slip op. at 11-12). We also agree with Judge Sandson that a review of the record demonstrates that Judge Connor properly exercised his discretion in fashioning defendant's sentence.

We also conclude that defendant's reliance on Miller is inapposite. In Miller, supra, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their offense violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. at , 132, S. Ct. at 2469, 183 L. Ed. 2d at 424.

Defendant's sentence is distinguishable from the sentence in Miller because it does not involve a mandatory life sentence without parole. Defendant was required to serve a minimum of forty years before becoming eligible for parole. Nothing in Miller prevents such a sentence from being imposed.

Defendant's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

1 A detailed recital of the facts can be found in this court's July 9, 2011 opinion. State v. Santiago, No. A-4881-99 (App. Div. July 9, 2001) (slip op. at 1-5).