Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2481-14T3
03-29-2017
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RONALD RICE, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Tamar Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 90-07-1267. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Tamar Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
In 1993, defendant Ronald Rice was convicted of first-degree robbery and associated weapons offenses. Based on his three prior Graves Act convictions, defendant was sentenced for the 1993 conviction to a mandatory extended term of life imprisonment with a twenty-five year parole bar. Defendant now appeals from an October 8, 2014 order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence.
On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument:
THE EXTENDED TERM IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED ON THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL FACT-FINDING REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S PRIOR RECORD, VIOLATES THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE. N.J. CONST. ART. 1, ¶¶ 1, 9, AND 10.
A. The Statutory Regime
B. The Constitutional Rights To Notice And Trial By Jury Require That Any Fact That Increases The Penalty For A Crime Beyond The Prescribed Statutory Maximum Be Charged In The Indictment And Found By A Jury Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.
C. There Is No Basis To Except The Fact Of A Prior Conviction From The Requirements Of The New Jersey Constitution.
We find no merit in defendant's arguments, which are contrary to long-established precedent permitting a sentencing court to impose an enhanced sentence based on a defendant's prior criminal convictions, without submitting that issue to a jury. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455 (2000); State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 481-82 (2005). As an intermediate appellate court, we cannot accept defendant's invitation to depart from that precedent, and would not do so if we could. See Lake Valley Assocs., LLC v. Twp. of Pemberton, 411 N.J. Super. 501, 507 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 202 N.J. 43 (2010).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION