SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2211- 22 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. LEMONT LOVE, a/k/a OMAR LOVE LEMONT, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Argued September 10, 2024

– Decided September 23, 2024 Before Judges Susswein and Bergman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment Nos. 07

- 03

- 0502, 08

- 01

- 0123 and 09

- 09

- 1537

. Lemont Love , appellant, argued the cause pro se. Randolph E. Mershon III, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for the respondent State of New Jersey. (Yolanda Ciccone , Middlesex County Prosecutor , attorney; Randolph E. Mershon , III, of counsel and on the brief ). PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 2211

- 22

Defendant Lemont Love appeals from a trial court o rder denying a motion for a reduction of his sentence based on two vacate d convictions granted by prior post -conviction relief (PCR) applications

. We granted defendant's motion to accelerat e his appeal. Defendant raises the following single point on appe al:

POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO RULE 3:21-10(b)(7) ON THE BASIS THAT THE SENTENCE WAS NOT ILLEGAL.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we dismi ss defendant's appeal
as moot

. I.
We will not set forth the factual and procedural background in detail and will rely upon and incorporate the history set forth in our prior opinion

. State v. Love, No. A-2125- 20 (App. Div. March 27, 2023) (slip op. at 2- 10) . For context, we briefly add the fol lowing. On January 10, 2023, defendant filed a motion with the Law Division seeking to change or reduce his sentence pursuant t o Rule 3:21 -10(b)(7) based3 A- 2211

- 22

on two previously granted PCR applications which va cated two of his prior convictions. The first PCR vacated his conviction for second-deg ree drug possession with intent to distribute by an order dated August 2, 2012, under Middlesex County accusation number 99- 03

- 0055 (Accusation 0055). Accusation 0055 charged defendant with second-degree drug possessio n with intent to distribute to which defendant had pled guilty in 1999. The se cond PCR vacated his conviction for fourth degree obstructing the admini stration of law or other government function by order of March 10, 2020, under Middlesex County indictment number 07- 03

- 0408 (Indictment 0408). Indictment 0408 was part of a global plea agreement in 2010 which consolidated four separate indictments

. As part of the agreement, defendant pled guilty to one count of third-degree distributi on of cocaine, one count of third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to d istr ibute , fourth degree obstructing the administration of law, and third-de gree eluding. The remaining charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreemen t. On December 8, 2010, consistent with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an aggr egate term of ten years imprisonment with five years of p arole ineligibility. There is no dispute the 1999 conviction under Accusation 005 5 was referenced and4 A- 2211

- 22

considered as an aggravating factor at his sentencing hearing in 2010 for Indictment 0408. In his motion before the trial court, defendant arg ued in 2010 the sentencing judge consider ed the one "after-vacated" conviction for second degree drug possession with intent to distribute in Accusation 0055 when imposing his sentence. Defendant also argued the g ranting of his PCR application, which vacated his conviction for fourt h degree obstructing the administration of law or other government function contained in Indictment
0408 , also supported his motion for a reduction of his sentence. After hearing arguments, the trial court rendered an oral decision denying defendant's motion. This appeal followed.
II. Defendant confirmed at oral argument his parole sup ervision ended in July
2024 completing his sentence under appeal

. Having thus completely served the sentence he challenged, there is no justiciable iss ue for us to resolve. S ee N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Boulden , 156 N.J

. Super. 494 , 497 (App. Div. 1978) (once a sentence has been completely executed and defendant unconditionally released, appellate review is little more than a meaningless exercise on a matter of complete insignificance).5 A- 2211

- 22

"It is firmly established that controversies which have become moot or academic prior to judicial resolution ordinarily wi ll be dismissed." Cinque v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 261 N.J. Super. 242, 243 (App . Div. 1993). "An issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when ren dered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (internal quota tion marks and citations omitted). This is rooted in the longstanding posit ion of our courts to avoid rendering "advisory opinions or function in the abs tract." Jackson v. Dep't of Corrs., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 230-231 (App. Div. 200 0) , certif. denied, 167 N.J. 630 (2001). We also must consider , despite circumstances that preclude the availability of an effective remedy, whether an app eal should be decided because the issues raised are of great public importance, or a re capable of repetition, yet [will] evade review. Matter of Commitment of C.M., 458 N.J. Super. 563 , 568 (App. Div. 2019). We determine the issues raised in this appeal do no t reach the level of great public importance, nor are they capable of repetition which will evade review. We conclude the vacated charges have no co nsequence to defendant's completed sentence, n or will any reduction of the sentence under appeal, if6 A- 2211

- 22

granted, affect any prospective future sentence for which defendant may be found guilty. Accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of defendant’s contentio n
. Dismissed.