STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BOMANI AFRICA A/K/A BAXTER RANDOLPH KEYS

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0176-05T10176-05T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BOMANI AFRICA A/K/A

BAXTER RANDOLPH KEYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

 

Submitted October 5, 2006 - Decided October 25, 2006

Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County,

Indictment Nos. 85-12-1279-I, 85-12-1313-I,

85-12-1328-I, I-124-85B, 85-11-1238-I.

Bomani Africa, appellant pro se.

James F. Avigliano, Passaic County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Christopher W. Hsieh, Senior Assistant

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Bomani Africa, a/k/a Baxter Randolph Keys, was convicted on three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of drug distribution in April 1986. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of fifty years, with a twenty-five-year period of parole ineligibility.

On July 22, 2005, defendant filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(1), seeking to be transferred to a drug rehabilitation treatment program. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that defendant was not eligible to apply for such relief until he has completed serving the period of parole ineligibility. Defendant now appeals from this ruling. We affirm.

As a threshold issue, we note that defendant's motion fails to state a basis justifying his transfer to a drug treatment program, even absent the legal impediment relied on by the motion judge. Although in his motion papers defendant claims he has taken drugs in the past, by his own admission he has not used any illicit drugs since 1999. Thus, as a matter of basic logic, he cannot claim that he is in need of treatment for a nonexistent addiction. In this light, we need not consider whether defendant's motion is not otherwise cognizable because he has not completed the period of parole ineligibility. See State v. Brown, 384 N.J. Super. 191, 194 (App. Div. 2006).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-0176-05T1

October 25, 2006