STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RALPH KIETT, JR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-02457-14T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RALPH KIETT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

July 20, 2016

Submitted June 22, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos. 85-04-0588 and 85-04-0589.

Ralph Kiett, appellant pro se.

James P. McClain, Atlantic City Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Derrick Diaz, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Ralph Kiett appeals from the November 13, 2014 order denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 3:20-2. Defendant filed his motion for a new trial twenty-nine years after he first pled guilty in 1985 to murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a); and second-degree escape from a juvenile facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5(a). He is serving an aggregate sentence of life in prison with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Michael A. Donio's cogent letter attached to the December 11, 2014 order denying defendant's motion for reconsideration.1

Defendant was charged as a seventeen-year-old juvenile with capital murder and incarcerated in a juvenile facility in 1983. He escaped, and was subsequently charged with that escape. He was waived to the Law Division, where he pled guilty to capital murder and second-degree escape in exchange for an agreement by the State not to seek the death penalty and to dismiss the other charges.

Our Supreme Court reversed the convictions, allowing defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, because defendant had been misinformed that the death penalty could be imposed on a juvenile. State v. Kiett, 121 N.J. 483, 499 (1990). Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the same charges with a more favorable sentencing agreement.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal

POINT I: STANDARD OF REVIEW.

POINT II: THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY ERRED BECAUSE IT MISAPPLIED THE STATUTE BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Defendant claims that neither he nor his defense counsel was ever provided with a copy of our appellate decision, State v. Kiett, No. A-2113-85 (App. Div. Oct. 5, 1988). As Judge Donio stated in his letter, our opinion affirming the denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his initial guilty plea was appealed to the Supreme Court where the Court reversed and remanded on November 14, 1990. Kiett, supra, 121 N.J. at 499. Thus defendant was aware of our 1988 opinion, which in any event was overturned by the Supreme Court and thus rendered irrelevant.

Affirmed.

1 Defendant does not appeal from this order, which in any event was a confirmation of the earlier denial, because defendant brought no additional information to the attention of the trial judge.