LORENZO OLIVER v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3022-06T13022-06T1

LORENZO OLIVER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE

BOARD,

Respondent-Respondent.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted October 10, 2007 - Decided October 24, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.

On appeal from the New Jersey State

Parole Board.

Lorenzo Oliver, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C.

Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Lorenzo Oliver appeals from the order of the New Jersey State Parole Board denying his application for parole, and setting a twenty-two-month future parole eligibility period. Petitioner was sentenced in 1995 to an aggregate term of thirty years, with a twelve-year period of parole ineligibility, in connection with various violent crimes, including two counts of second-degree sexual assault; two counts of third-degree criminal restraint; and one count of second-degree attempted sexual assault.

The Board last reviewed petitioner's parole eligibility status on July 13, 2006. At that time, a two-member panel of the Board denied parole, and set a twenty-two-month future parole eligibility period. Acting on petitioner's application for review, the full Board affirmed the panel's decision.

Petitioner now appeals raising the following argument.

POINT ONE

NEW JERSEY'S STATE LEGISLATURE CREATION OF THE STATE PAROLE BOARD'S APPLICATION OF THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES, N.J. A.C. 30:4- 82 AND 2C:4.47 DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS BY RETROACTIVELY MANDATING THAT HE BE DENIED PAROLE AND SERVE HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCE, THERE BY INCREASING HIS PUNISHMENT, IN VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONST. ART.1. SECT. 10.C1.1.

Petitioner's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3022-06T1

October 24, 2007