Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3991-09T3
05-16-2012
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANK BOATSWAIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Frank Boatswain, appellant pro se. Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Messano and Kennedy.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 01-11-4457.
Frank Boatswain, appellant pro se.
Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In 2001, defendant was indicted and charged with theft by deception, a third degree offense, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. He later moved for dismissal of the charge, claiming he had not been brought to trial in accordance with the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15. Defendant withdrew the motion in consideration of a plea bargain in which the State agreed to a maximum sentence of three years. Consequently, defendant pled guilty and on October 4, 2002, was sentenced to a term of three years in state prison, with gap time credit of 334 days.
Following his release from prison, defendant apparently committed a crime in New York for which he was "given additional time" on the sentence as a consequence of his prior conviction in New Jersey. In 2007, he filed a motion in the Law Division to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that the "additional time" he received on his sentence in New York was a violation of his plea agreement in New Jersey. On March 18, 2010, Judge Peter V. Ryan denied defendant's motion for reasons set forth in his written opinion.
Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and argues that Judge Ryan erred and failed to address his argument that the original charge should have been dismissed because his rights under the IAD were violated. We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's motion for the reasons set forth in Judge Ryan's comprehensive March 18, 2010 written decision. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11- 3(e)(2). We add only that defendant, having withdrawn his motion under the IAD in consequence of the plea offer which he accepted and the court honored, has waived that claim. State v. Binn, 208 N.J. Super. 443, 447 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 104 N.J. 471 (1986).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION