SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 2769

- 18T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. SAMUEL RYAN, Defendant

- Appellant.

_______________________

Argued November 9 , 2020

– Decided Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 96

- 04

- 0511. James K. Smith, Jr. , Assistant Deputy Public Defend er, argued the cause for appellant ( Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney ; James K. Smith, Jr., of counsel and on the brief s ). Daniel Finkelstein , Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney ; Daniel Finkelstein , of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court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.

November 20 , 20202 A

- 2769

- 18T3

PER CURIAM Defendant Samuel Ryan appeals f rom a January 17, 2019 order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief (PCR). 1 Specifically, defendant asserts his sentence of life without parole is unconstitutional under State v. Zuber , 227 N.J. 422 (2017), violating both the federal and state co nstitutions. He also contends he cannot be sentenced to life without parole under the "Three Strikes Law,"
N.J.S.A. 2C:43

- 7.1, because his first "strike" occurred when he was a juvenile. We disagree and affirm for the comprehensive and well

- explained re asons set forth in the written decision rendered by Judge Cristen P. D'Arrigo. The relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in Judge D'Arrigo's decision. Defendant's conviction was affirmed, including his challenge to the sentence of life imp risonment without parole. 2 State v. Ryan , No. A

- 3008

- 97 (App. Div. June 8, 1999). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Ryan , 163 N.J. 77 (2000). Defendant's p rior PCR petitions were denied, and we affirmed the denials of those PCR petitions

. See State v. Ryan , No. A

- 1719

- 05 (App. Div. June 27, 2008), certif. denied , 196 N.J. 466

1 Defendant's motion was styled as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

2 The opinions affirming defendant's convictions and denying his prior PCR petitions were decided prior to our Supreme Court's decision in Zuber

.3 A

- 2769

- 18T3

(2008); State v. Ryan , No. A

- 3631

- 11 (App. Div. Dec. 14, 2012), certif. denied , 214 N.J. 117 (2013).
O n appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I
THE IMPOSITION OF A LIFE

- WITHOUT

- PAROLE SENTENCE UNDER THE "THREE STRIKES" LAW VIOLAT E S BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONS T ITUTIONS WHERE THE OFFENDER WAS A JUVENILE AT THE TME OF ONE OF THE SUPPORTING OFFENSES. A. The Three Strikes Law.
B. The Constitution al of Requirements. C. Applying T he Principles Set Forth I n Graham , Miller , and Zuber , [ It Is ] Clear That Samuel Ryan's Life Without Parole Sentence I s Unconstitutional. We conclude defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant disc ussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(2). We add the following brief remarks.
The " Three Strikes L aw " compels a sentence of life imprisonment with out parole for a person "who has been convicted of two or more crimes that were committed on prior and separate occasions . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:43

- 7.1(a). Our Supreme Court has upheld the "Three Strikes L aw " as constitutional,4 A

- 2769

- 18T3

determining that imposition of a life sentence without parole does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Oliver , 162 N.J. 580, 58 8 (2000). The cases relie d upon by defendant in support of his motion are inapplicable as defendant was almost twenty

- three years old and , therefore , no longer a juvenile at the time of his second and third conviction s . See Miller v.
Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 477

- 78 (2012) (establishing five factors to be considered when sentencing a juvenile in adult court); Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010) ( precluding imposition of a life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of non

- homicide offenses ); Zuber , 227 N.J. at 451 ( requiring a sentencing judge " to ' take into account how [ juvenile defendants ] are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevoca bly sentencing [ juveniles ] to a lifetime in prison '" (quoting Miller , 567 U.S. at 480) )

. Here, defendant was an adult when he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The decisions in Miller , Graham , and Zuber sought to prevent lifetime i mprisonment for a juvenile offender in order to give the juvenile an
opp ortunity to reenter society. D efendant had his opportunity to reenter society after completing his prison sentence for the offense committed while he was a juvenile. Rather than lead ing a law

- abiding life , defendant committed additional

c rimes as an adul t, demonstrating an escalating level of violence with each5 A

- 2769

- 18T3

additional crime. Nothing in the case law prevents a sentencing judge from considering convictions for crimes committed by juveniles who are subsequently sentenced as adults under the "Three Strik es Law." Affirmed.