STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TEDDY ROSE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2858-09T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

TEDDY ROSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

April 18, 2011

Submitted: April 6, 2011 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 84-08-02503.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jane D. Plaisted, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In June 1985, a jury found defendant Teddy Rose guilty of murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a; second degree possession of a weapon (a sawed-off shotgun) for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; third degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3b; and fourth degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(2). The victim was an Irvington police officer. Later, the jury returned a special verdict requiring imposition of a sentence of death and a death warrant issued. On September 22, 1988, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the verdicts of guilt, but reversed the death sentence. State v. Rose, 112 N.J. 454, 547 (1988). At the re-sentencing trial, the jury did not render a unanimous verdict; therefore, the trial judge imposed a term for "his natural life" with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility.

After pursuing habeas corpus relief in federal court, defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on January 8, 2008. Considered a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), Judge St. John denied the petition on January 16, 2009.1 The judge held the sentence imposed is a legal sentence.

On appeal, defendant reiterates his contention that his sentence should be amended to seventy-five years imprisonment with a twenty-five year period of parole ineligibility.2 We disagree.

We affirm the January 16, 2009 order substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge St. John in his written opinion of the same date.

1 When defendant filed his PCR petition, an illegal sentence was a recognized ground for PCR. R. 3:22-2(c). Effective September 1, 2009, the rules governing PCR and review of sentences were amended. Post-judgment motions seeking only review of a sentence are now governed by Rule 3:21-10(b)(5). A motion seeking review of an illegal sentence may be brought at any time. R. 3:21-10(b).

2 On appeal, defendant raises the following argument: "Defendant's judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect a sentence of seventy-five years with a one-third period of parole ineligibility."