SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 1928
- 16T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plainti ff
- Respondent,

v. YERO TAKUMA a/k/a ANDREW GRIFFITH, Defendant
- Appellant.

_____________________________

Argued May 30 , 2018
– Decided July 6, 2018 Before Judges Fisher, Moynihan and Natali. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 84
- 05
- 1653 and 84
- 05
- 1654 . James K. Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant ( Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney ; James K. Smith, Jr. , o f counsel and on the brief). Frank J. Ducoat, Spe cial Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent ( Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney ; Frank J. Ducoat , 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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 - 1928
- 16T1

Defendant Yero Takuma appeals from the deni al of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing:

POINT I
BECAUSE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND OUR STATE CONSTITUTION GIVE JUVENILE OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO LENGTHY PRISON TERMS "SOME MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN RELEASE BASED ON DEMONSTRATED MATURI TY AND REHABILI T ATION," DEFENDANT TAKUMA, WHO HAS ALREADY SERVED IN EXC ESS OF 33 YEARS IN PRISON, MUST BE RESENTENCED.
A. THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
B. THE RECOGNITION THAT JUVENILE OFFENDERS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGE.
C. THE ZUBER [ 1 ] OPINION AND OUR STATE CONSTITUTION . D. UNDER THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN MILLER [ 2 ] AND ZUBER , JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHO HAVE SERVED MORE THAN 30 YEARS IN PRISON ARE ENTITLED TO A RESENTENCING. We decline to extend defendant's interpretation of the precepts
of Miller and Zuber to this case and affirm.

1 State v. Zuber , 227 N.J. 422, cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 152 (2017).

2 Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012).3 A - 1928
- 16T1

Defendant, having been charged under two indictments for crimes committed when he was sixteen years old , 3 pleaded guilty to all four counts of the first indictment: felony murder of Preston McGhee, N.J.S.A. 2C:11
- 3(a)(3) (count one); first
- degree robbery of McGhee, N.J. S.A. 2C:15
- 1 (count two); third
- degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C :39
- 5(b ) (count three); and
second
- degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,
N. J.S.A. 2C:39
- 4(a) (count four) ; and to aggravated manslaughter as a lesser included offense of count one of the second indictment. 4 The State agreed to recommend: (1) a s entence of thirty years to life for felony murder under count one of the first indictment with a minimum parole ineligibility of thirty years; (2) a concurrent term for the sentence imposed for aggravated manslaughter under the second indictment; and (3)
d ismissal of the remaining counts of the second indictment . In accordance with the range set forth in the plea agreement,

3 The crimes were committed on February 13, 1984. Defe ndant was born on May 15, 1967.

4 The second indictment charged defendant with the purposeful or knowing murder of Edmond Leslie, N.J.S.A. 2C:11
- 3(a)(1 ) , (2) (count one); felony murder of Leslie, N.J.S .A. 2C:11
- 3(a)(3) (count two); first
- degree robbery of Leslie, N.J.S.A. 2C:15
- 1 (count three); third
- degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39
- 5(b) (count four); and second
- degree possessio n of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N .J.S.A. 2C:39
- 4(a) (count five) .4 A - 1928
- 16T1

defendant was sentenced in January 1985 to life imprisonment with a thirty
- year parole ineligibility period for felony murder, and
to concurrent terms of twenty years for robbery, five years for unlawful possession of a handgun, and ten years for possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpo se . On the second indictment, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of ten ye ars for aggravated

ma nslaughter . 5 Before addressing defendant's arguments, we turn to the State's claims that this appeal is procedurally barred under Rule
3:22
- 5 and is moot. The Rule 3:22
- 5 bar stems from defendant's January 2013 motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 3:21
- 10 based on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Miller . Because we affirmed the trial court's denial of that motion, 6 the State argues defendant is seeking "a second bite at the same apple , " which should be precluded inasmuch as our decisio n was a "prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground for relief [which] is conclusive whether made in the proceedings resulting in the conviction or in any post - conviction pr oceeding brought pursuant to this rule or prior

5 We affirmed defendant's sentence but merged the robbery conviction with his felony murder conviction and vacated the robbery sentence . State v. Griffith , No. A - 2903
- 84 (App. Div. Nov. 19, 1985).

6 State v. Takuma , No. A - 4784
- 13 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2015) .5 A - 1928
- 16T1

to the adoption thereof, or i n any appeal taken from such proceedings ," R. 3:22
- 5 . Notwithstanding that defendant's present claim directly
references Miller , he avers in his reply brief that he "is not seeking to relitigate a Miller claim , he is seeking relief based

on Zuber ." Setting aside for a moment that Zuber was decided by the Supreme Court after the motion judge had already entered the
order th at is the basis for this appeal

– and before this appeal was filed 7

– we will allow defendant's challenge to what he alleges is an illegal sentence. See Zuber , 227 N.J. at 437 (recognizing
that Rule 3:21
- 10(b)(5) permits a defendant to "challenge an illegal sentence at any time"). We also determine the State's mootness argument

– based on defendant's present parole
- eligible status after having served thirty years

— to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
here. R. 2:11
- 3(e)(2). Defendant's parole status could be impacted if we were to order defendant to be resenten ced, and a judge reduced the life term. See In re Registrant J.S. , 444 N.J. Super. 303, 313 (App. Div. 2016 ) ( acknowledging a case is moot "when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no

7 The motion judge's order was entered November 17, 2016. Our Supreme Court decided Zuber on January 11, 2017. Defendant filed this appeal six days later.6 A - 1928
- 16T1

practical effec t on the existing controversy " (quo ting Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr . , 382 N.J. Super. 254, 258 (App. Div. 2006)) ). Despite appellate couns el's advancement of an argument unraised to the trial court, we will consider defendant's argument that he is entitled to resentencing under the Supreme Court's holding in Zuber , by extension of Miller . 8 See ACLU v. Cty. of
Hudson , 352 N.J. Super. 44, 72 (App. Div. 2002) ( recognizing that an argument not raised in the trial court may be considered on appeal where "an arguably superseding . . . decisional development occur[red] between the time a court rendered its decision and appellate consideration of the judgment or order " and "the focal issue [was] entirely a question of law"). " W e consider legal and constitutional questions de novo." State v. Galicia , 210 N.J. 364 , 381 (2012) ; see also State v. Hudson , 209 N.J. 513, 529 (2012) (noting that questions of law in sentencing are reviewed de novo). We first conclude that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without

8 The trial court did consider our now overturned decision in State v. Zuber , 442 N.J. Super. 611 (App. Div. 2015) , concluding that defendant's thirty
- year period of parole ineligibility "did not amount to a de facto life sentence as it afforded him the opportunity to have a meaningful and realistic opportunity for parole . "7 A - 1928
- 16T1

possibility of parole for juvenile offenders," as determined by
the Miller court, 567 U.S. at 479, is not implicated here. In considering the reach of Miller and other related decisions, the
Zuber Court considered the sentences of t wo offenders who were juveniles when they committed their crimes: Zuber, who was convicted of two rapes and sentenced to an aggregate of 110 years with fifty
- fiv e years of parole ineligibility

– first eligible for parole at age seventy
- two; and Comer, who was convicted of four armed robberies and sentenced to an aggregate of seventy
- five years with just over sixty
- eigh t years of parole ineligibility

– first eligible at age eighty
- five. Zuber , 227 N.J. at 428 , 430,
433 . Although the Court determined both sentences were " not officially 'life without parole , ' " they nonetheless "trigger [ ed ] the protect ions of Miller under the Federal and State
C onstitutions. " Id. at 448. The important question considered by the Zuber Court
– "Will a juvenile be imprisoned fo r life, or will he have a chance at
release?" Id. at 446
– has already been answered in th is case.
Defendant
– who is not yet forty years old
— has already been considered for parole. 9 Unlike the defendants in Zuber , defendant

9 The New Jersey Parole Board denied defendant's application in May 2015. Takuma v . N.J. State Parole Bd. , No. A - 5672
- 14 ( App. Div. May 2, 2017) (slip op. at 5 ). We reversed the Parole Board's8 A - 1928
- 16T1

did not face "potential re lease after five or six decades of incarceration, when they would be in their seventies and eighties ." Id. at 4 4 8. Defendant has not
– in violation of the Eighth
Amendment
– been "denied [by the State of] any chance to later [after sentencing] demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society." Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 79 (2009) (emphasis added) . Unlike the sentences imposed in Zuber , this was a bargained
for term, pursuant to which defendant enjoyed the benefit of
sentenc es on all other counts that ran concurrent to the life term with a mandated thirty years of parole ineligibility. The sentence

– which has already resulted in an opportunity to obtain release

– hardly amounts to the constitutionally infirm life without
ef fective chance of parole terms decried in Zuber . Further, the sentencing judge said he was burden ed "because the court realizes the age of the [d]efendant when he perpetrated these crimes, and he is young today," and found "there's o ne mitigating factor, his age." The judge also noted that defendant did

not have a lengthy record because he's a [ juvenile ] and as a [ juvenile ] he had one possession in 1983 of a dangerous weapon which was a gun. His background, he was atten ding denial of defendant's parole application and remanded the matter for the Board to conduct a new parole hearing within forty
- five days because it was unclear what standard the Board applied when it reviewed defendant's applic ation . Id. at 8
- 9. The record does not contain the Parole Board's decision on remand.9 A - 1928
- 16T1 school but had to leave. H e was always involved in fights, showing the nature of the person. He was involved in fights and as a matter of fact was expelled, I think from Barringer High School, because of many incidents of fighting in school, indicating violence within [defendant] that he expressed o ne night in killing two people. The judge imposed sentence after weighing the circumstances of the crimes against defendant's age and background. We find no support for defendant's contention that the sentencing judge believed
defendant " might be beyond rehabilitation." Defendant did not raise to the trial court, likely because
Zuber had not yet been decided, his present argument that juveniles
who have served prison terms of thirty years or more should be considered for resentencing or parole. Our Supreme Court declined to address that issue in Zuber , and instead "encourage[d] the Legislature to examine this issue , " observing " Graham left it to
the States ' to explore the means and mechanisms ' to give defendants

' some meaningful opportun ity to obtain release based on
demonstrat ed maturity and rehabilitation.'" Zuber , 227 N.J. at
452 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 75). We follow the Court's recommendation, noting the Legislature's introduction

– and referral to the Law and Public Safety Committee

– of S. 428 (2018) . W e also note defendant has had a " meaningful opportunity to obtain
release. "10 A - 1928
- 16T1

We determine the balance of defendant's arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11
- 3(e)(2). Inas much as we determine defendant is not entitled to be resentenced under Zuber , we need not consider defendant's musings that our Supreme Court chose resentencing as the remedy because the Parole Board does not consider a juvenile's
you th and attendant circu mstances. The Supreme Court made no such pronouncement. Moreover, we will not consider an issue that implicates the interplay of judicial sentencing and executive parole raised for the first time in defendant's reply brief. See Borough of Berlin v. Remi ngton & Vernick Eng'rs , 337 N.J. Super. 590, 596 (App. Div. 2001) ( declining to consider an issue raised

" for the first time in a reply brief "); s ee also State v. Smith , 55 N.J. 476, 488 (1970). Affirmed.