STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL RYAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3631-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SAMUEL RYAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

December 14, 2012

Argued December 5, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Axelrad and Nugent.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 96-04-0511.

Lon Taylor, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Taylor, of counsel and on the brief).

Matthew M. Bingham, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Bingham, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Samuel Ryan is serving two concurrent life sentences without parole. A court imposed the sentences in 1997 under the "Three Strikes Law," N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1, after a jury convicted defendant of armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 2C:5-1; and other offenses that the court subsequently merged with the robbery and attempted murder convictions. In this appeal, defendant challenges the January 13, 2012 Law Division order that denied without an evidentiary hearing his tenth petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

SINCE THE THREE-STRKES LIFE-TERM SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WAS IMPOSED AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXTENDED-TERM SENTENCE OF [SIXTY] YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, IT VIOLATED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE EXTENDED-TERM SENTENCES PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:45-5(a)(2) AND THEREFORE IS ILLEGAL

POINT II

SINCE DEFENDANT HAS SHOWN THAT HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS EXPOSURE TO THE THREE-STRIKES LIFE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE DURING TWO PLEA OFFERS, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF THAT HE WAS INFORMED OF THAT EXTREME SENTENCE, HE SHOULD BE GIVEN NEW TRIALS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD-STRIKE CHARGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL PLEA OFFER

Judge Richard J. Geiger, who denied defendant's tenth PCR petition, explained his decision in an oral opinion he delivered from the bench on January 13, 2012, the same day he entered the order. We affirm, substantially for the reasons given by Judge Geiger in his well-reasoned oral decision. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.