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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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 parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-2211-22

 Defendant Lemont Love appeals from a trial court order denying a motion 

for a reduction of his sentence based on two vacated convictions granted by prior 

post-conviction relief (PCR) applications. We granted defendant's motion to

accelerate his appeal. Defendant raises the following single point on appeal: 

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 dismiss 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 following.

On January 10, 2023, defendant filed a motion with the Law Division 

seeking to change or reduce his sentence pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(7) based 
3 A-2211-22

on two previously granted PCR applications which vacated two of his prior 

convictions. 

The first PCR vacated his conviction for second-degree 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 possession with intent to distribute 

to which defendant had pled guilty in 1999. The second PCR vacated his 

conviction for fourth degree obstructing the administration 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 distribution of cocaine, one count of 

third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, fourth degree 

obstructing the administration of law, and third-degree eluding. The remaining 

charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. On December 8, 2010, 

consistent with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate 

term of ten years imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility. There is 

no dispute the 1999 conviction under Accusation 0055 was referenced and 
4 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 argued in 2010 the 

sentencing judge considered 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 granting of his PCR 

application, which vacated his conviction for fourth 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 supervision ended in July 

2024 completing his sentence under appeal. Having thus completely served the 

sentence he challenged, there is no justiciable issue for us to resolve. See 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 will 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 rendered, 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 quotation marks and citations 

omitted). This is rooted in the longstanding position of our courts to avoid 

rendering "advisory opinions or function in the abstract." Jackson v. Dep't of 

Corrs., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 230-231 (App. Div. 2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 

630 (2001). 

We also must consider, despite circumstances that preclude the 

availability of an effective remedy, whether an appeal should be decided because 

the issues raised are of great public importance, or are 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 not reach the level of 

great public importance, nor are they capable of repetition which will evade 

review. We conclude the vacated charges have no consequence to defendant's 

completed sentence, nor will any reduction of the sentence under appeal, if 
6 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 contention. 

Dismissed.