SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3488-17T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PAUL REID,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted April 3, 2019 – Decided April 17, 2019

Before Judges Alvarez and Reisner.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 03-03-0403.

Paul Reid, appellant pro se.

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (Jaimee M. Chasmer, Assistant Prosecutor, 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3488-17T2

Defendant Paul Reid appeals from a February 21, 2018 order denying his 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm for the reasons stated by the 

motion judge. We add these brief comments. 

In 2004, defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree 

felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3), for which he was sentenced to two 

consecutive terms of thirty years without parole. The jury also convicted him 

of aggravated manslaughter, kidnapping, and several additional offenses, for 

which he received concurrent terms. Defendant previously filed a direct appeal, 

a petition for post-conviction relief, a petition for habeas corpus, and a 2013 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. As reflected in our opinion affirming the 

denial of the 2013 motion, all of those challenges were unsuccessful. State v. 

Reid, No. A-5637-12 (App. Div. May 26, 2015). 

The current appeal arises from a second motion to correct an illegal 

sentence, which defendant filed in 2018. Judge Nesle A. Rodriguez denied that 

motion for reasons expressed in a written opinion issued with the order. Judge 

Rodriguez explained in her opinion that defendant's sentence was lawful, and 

his objections were not cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence. 

On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument:
3

A-3488-17T2

POINT 1

THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF 

AGGRAVATING FACTORS [ENUMERATED IN 

2C:44-1A], OTHER THAN THE FACT OF A PRIOR 

CONVICTION, WHICH WERE THEN USED TO 

RAISE THE MINIMUM PUNISHMENT (FLOOR) 

NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE JURY'S VERDICT, 

VIOLATES ALLEYNE, WHICH PROHIBITS SUCH 

ENHANCEMENTS.

(Not Raised Below)

POINT II

THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED BY 

IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE 

BASED O[N] FACTORS ESTABLISHED IN STATE 

V. YARBOUGH, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).

In his first argument, which was not raised in the trial court, defendant 

contends that the sentencing judge violated the principles set forth in Alleyne v. 

United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), in finding and weighing the aggravating 

factors. That argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Defendant also argues that the sentencing 

judge was mistaken in weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, and 

misapplied the Yarbough factors. See State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985). 

As Judge Rodriguez correctly stated, those arguments are not cognizable on a 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. 
4

A-3488-17T2

Affirmed.