STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTIN LUTHER BASKERVILLEAnnotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-0
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
MARTIN LUTHER BASKERVILLE,
October 23, 2014
Submitted October 8, 2014 Decided
Before Judges Fuentes and O'Connor.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 88-04-0524.
Martin Luther Baskerville, appellant pro se.
John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Annmarie Cozzi, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs).
In these consolidated appeals defendant Martin Luther Baskerville seeks to collaterally attack a 1993 conviction arising from a 1988 indictment returned by a Bergen County Grand Jury that charged him with first degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, fourth degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5), and fourth degree resisting arrest by eluding a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2. Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted on July 1, 1993 of all three of these charges. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of twenty years on the armed robbery count, and a term of eighteen months for each of the aggravated assault and resisting arrest counts, to run concurrently with the twenty-year term. The resultant twenty-year sentence was to run consecutively with a sentence defendant was serving in New York State.
On direct appeal to this court, we affirmed defendant's conviction. State v. Baskerville, No. A-5960-94 (App. Div. Oct. 30, 1996). With the State's consent, we remanded the matter to the trial court and instructed it to award defendant additional jail time credits for the period from December 25, 1987 to April 7, 1988, "without prejudice to defendant's further application to the judge for further credit to which he may be entitled." Id. (slip op. at 10). The trial court followed our instructions and awarded defendant the additional jail time credits. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Baskerville, 148 N.J. 461 (1997).
Defendant filed his first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on October 21, 1999. The Office of the Public Defender assigned an attorney to represent him and the petition came before the PCR judge on February 2, 2001. After considering the arguments of counsel, the PCR judge denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed the denial of PCR in a per curiam unpublished opinion. State v. Baskerville, No. A-3924-00 (App. Div. Oct. 31, 2002). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Baskerville, 176 N.J. 279 (2003).1
On July 19, 2011, defendant, with the assistance of counsel, filed an "application" in the Superior Court seeking additional jail time credit. On November 28, 2011, Judge Donald R. Venezia granted defendant's application and amended the Judgment of Conviction (JOC) to award defendant 500 additional jail time credits. On April 30, 2012, defendant filed a pro se motion seeking to correct "an illegal sentence." Judge Venezia denied this motion in an order dated May 2, 2012. Defendant challenges this order in this appeal.
On June 18, 2012, defendant moved before this court seeking to vacate his consecutive sentence or amend his JOC. By order dated August 20, 2012, Judge Paulette M. Sapp-Peterson denied defendant's motion. Judge Sapp-Peterson specifically noted that "[t]he motion to vacate [the consecutive] sentence or modify the trial court judgment is the substance of the Notice of Appeal."
Defendant now appeals from these two orders denying any further modification of his sentence. In A-5050-11, defendant argues
THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY IMPOSED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
A. The Trial Court Failed To Separately State The Reason For Imposing Consecutive Sentences As Required By Yarbough.
B. The Lower Court Erred In Summarily Denying Defendant/Appellant's Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence. Where It Was An Abuse Of Discretion For The Trial Court Not To Follow The Guidelines In Yarbough. Thus, Depriving Defendant/Appellant Of His Due Process Rights Under The U.S. Const. Amend. XIV N.J. Const. Art. I, Par 10.
In A-2151-12, defendant argues
APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.
APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF POST CONVICTION RELIEF COUNSEL.
None of the arguments raised by defendant in these two consolidated appeals have sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
1 In his pro se brief, defendant claims that he filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court of New Jersey on November 25, 2005, which was dismissed by the court as untimely. We are not able to verify the accuracy of this allegation because the appellate record does not contain a copy of the federal pleadings or the court's order allegedly dismissing the petition seeking habeas corpus relief.