Opinion
Submitted June 14, 1971 —
Decided June 28, 1971.
Appeal from The Cumberland County Court.
Before Judges CONFORD, KOLOVSKY and CARTON.
Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Mr. Edward Weisslitz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Mr. Joseph Tuso, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Mr. Samuel J. Serata, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
This second post-conviction application based primarily upon alleged excessiveness of sentence was barred since a prior post-conviction application on the same ground was determined adversely to defendant and not appealed. R. 3:22-3; 3:22-5. Moreover, alleged excessiveness of sentence is not an appropriate ground of post-conviction relief, but only a ground for direct appeal from the conviction unless the sentence is "in excess of or otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law". R. 3:22-2. This is not such a case.
There is no merit in the additional claim of absence of speedy trial.
Affirmed.