[brief] That is in State vs. Johnson at 182 NJ 232, a 2005 New Jersey Supreme Court case.  In the matter before this Court, the defendant entered his guilty plea.  The criminal -- Municipal Court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with defendant and advised him of the penalties of a sentence on a third or subsequent DUI conviction, and the Court previously iterated the exact words stated during the colloquy in its findings of fact.  At no point during the Municipal Court's advisement of the consequences and penalties associated with the guilty plea did the Court ever mention that the license suspension for 10 years was to run concurrently with any existing license suspension.  At no point before defendant entered his guilty plea did either attorney represent on the record that the plea was negotiated or predicated on the understanding the defendant's license suspension would run concurrently with his existing suspension.  Arguably, the attorneys could not make that representation because to do so would be to advocate for an illegal sentence.  Rather, both the prosecutor and defense counsel highlighted other aspects of the plea agreement, including that the other four charges would be dismissed upon the entry of the guilty plea to the DUI offense, credit for time served and satisfaction of part of the sentence in an alternate facility, and that is in the February, 2013 transcript at Page 5, Line 7 through Line 15 and Lines 21 through 24, as well as at Page 6, Line 5 through Line 23.  The only representation by an attorney was from the prosecutor who informed the Municipal Court that this was defendant's third DUI.  It was actually his fourth.  The prosecutor stated, "It is his third offense, subsequent offense, Judge, so there is a 10-year loss of license," and that is at the February, 2013 transcript at Page 5, Lines 9 through 11.  It was only after the Court accepted the guilty plea that the Court engaged in the following discussion:  "The Court: Okay.  Do you have a driver's license?  "[...]: No.  "The Court: Suspended already? "[...]: Yeah.  "The Court: Yes? "[...]: Yes, sir.  "The Court: Well, as a result of your plea of guilty here today, it's suspended for 10 more years from today's date.  Do you understand that?"  And [...] responded, "Yes, sir."  The language in the sentencing colloquy that the defendant contends is misleading is the part of "from today's date."  However, this Court views the operative word as "more" given the context of the plea discussion, and that is at Page 14, Lines 13 through 15.  When the Municipal Court Judge stated that his license would be suspended for 10 more years from today's date, this was in the broader context of the discussion on defendant's license already having been suspended.  The con -- in this context, "more" implies that the suspension is in addition to the earlier suspension and it's not simply to run concurrently.  Further, at no time did anyone ask that the suspension run concurrently or seek clarification regarding the suspension of the license.  Upon a de novo review of the trial Court's record, this Court is satisfied that the defendant's plea was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and that the defendant was fully apprised of the potential consequences of a guilty plea.  Therefore, the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea is denied…