Court Opinion

ID: 9957807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:09:27.541613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.449966
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1994-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN L. MARTIN,

     Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________

                   Submitted March 11, 2024 – Decided April 5, 2024

                   Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 91-12-5048.

                   Kevin Martin, appellant pro se.

                   Theodore N. Stephens, II, Essex County Prosecutor,
                   attorney for respondent (Hannah Faye Kurt, Assistant
                   Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

          Defendant Kevin Martin appeals from the October 19, 2022 order of the

Law Division denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
                                       I.

      In 1992, a grand jury indicted defendant, charging him with: (1) second-

degree conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1

(count one); (2) first-degree robbery of Yamileth Virk, Harbans Virk, Tarun

Desai and Sanjay Kothari, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (counts two, three, eleven and

fourteen); (3) third-degree theft by receiving movable property (a stolen car),

N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7 (count four); (4) third-degree unlawful possession of handguns

without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (counts five and seven); (5) second-

degree possession of handguns and a shotgun with a purpose to use them

unlawfully against the person of another, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (counts six, eight

and ten); (6) third-degree possession of a shotgun without a firearms purchaser

identification card, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(c)(1) (count nine); (7) first-degree

attempted murder of Eric Steele and Sanjay Kothari, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 (counts fifteen and sixteen); (8) felony murder of Otis

Thrasher, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3) (count seventeen); and (9) purposeful and

knowing murder of Otis Thrasher, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) (count

eighteen).1

1
  The indictment charged defendant with an additional eleven counts which
were severed prior to trial.
                                                                          A-1994-22
                                       2
      The charges arose from defendant's participation with others in two armed

robberies of open businesses in Essex County on the same day. During the

robberies, defendant and his co-conspirators murdered Thrasher, a security

guard, by shooting him in the abdomen, repeatedly shot other victims, some of

whom were forced to lay on the floor at gunpoint, and stole money and other

items. Defendant and the others used a stolen car in the commission of the

robberies. At the time of the crimes, defendant was eighteen.

      A jury convicted defendant of second-degree conspiracy to commit

robbery (count one), four counts of first-degree robbery (counts two, three,

eleven and fourteen), receiving stolen property (count four), the six weapons

offenses (counts five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten), attempted murder of

Kothari (count sixteen), and felony murder and murder of Thrasher (counts

seventeen and eighteen). The jury found defendant not guilty of attempted

murder of Steele, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-

degree aggravated assault of Steele (count fifteen).

      On August 6, 1992, the trial court sentenced defendant. The court merged

defendant's conspiracy to commit robbery conviction (count one) into his

robbery convictions (counts two, three, eleven and fourteen) and two of his

weapon convictions (counts six and eight) into his aggravated assault and

                                                                         A-1994-22
                                        3
attempted murder convictions (counts fifteen and sixteen). In addition, the court

merged one of defendant's weapon convictions (count ten), two of his robbery

convictions (counts eleven and fourteen), and his purposeful and knowing

murder conviction (count eighteen) into his felony murder conviction (count

seventeen).

      With respect to the first robbery, the court sentenced defendant to a thirty-

year period of incarceration during which he is ineligible for parole , for his

felony murder conviction (count seventeen) and imposed a consecutive

eighteen-year term of incarceration, with a six-year period of parole ineligibility

for the robbery of Yamileth Virk (count two). A concurrent eighteen-year

conviction with a six-year period of parole ineligibility was imposed for the

robbery of Harbans Virk (count three), along with four concurrent five-year

terms of incarceration for receiving stolen property (count four) and three

weapon offenses (counts five, seven and nine).

      With respect to the second robbery, the court imposed a consecutive nine-

year period of incarceration, with a three-year period of parole ineligibility for

the aggravated assault of Steele (count fifteen) and a concurrent eighteen-year

term with a seven-year period of parole ineligibility for attempted murder of

                                                                             A-1994-22
                                        4
Kothari (count sixteen). The sentences resulted in an aggregate fifty-seven-year

term of incarceration, with a thirty-nine-year period of parole ineligibility.

      We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. State

v. Martin, A-0995-92 (App. Div. Nov. 10, 1994). In addition to other arguments

we found unpersuasive, we rejected defendant's argument that the trial court

             abused its discretion by making his sentence on the
             conviction of . . . second-degree aggravated assault of
             Eric Steele (lesser included offense of count fifteen)
             consecutive to the sentence imposed on his conviction
             of first-degree felony murder of Otis Thrasher (count
             seventeen). Defendant maintains that the consecutive
             nature of the sentences was excessive in view of the fact
             that the crimes and their objectives were not
             predominantly independent of each other.

             [(Slip op. at 34).]

Citing State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), we held that defendant's

consecutive sentences were appropriate, given that the two robberies were

separate acts that took place hours apart and the shooting of multiple victims at

one of the robberies were separate acts of violence with multiple victims. (Slip

op. at 38-40). The Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Martin, 141 N.J.

94 (1995).

      In 1999, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court denied the petition. We

                                                                             A-1994-22
                                        5
affirmed. State v. Martin, No. A-2513-99 (App. Div. Nov. 19, 2001). The

Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Martin, 172 N.J. 358 (2002). 2

      On December 20, 2021, defendant filed a motion in the Law Division to

correct an illegal sentence. In support of his motion, defendant submitted a

certification in which he stated that he should not have received an aggregate

thirty-nine-year period of parole ineligibility, but an aggregate thirty-six-year

period of parole ineligibility.    Defendant certified that "[u]pon reviewing

sentencing transcripts, it is clear the sentencing [c]ourt erred in the accumulation

of the overall sentence and the mandatory minimum portion of the sentence for

count[s] 15 to 17." In addition, defendant argued that the court should have

merged the aggravated assault of Steele (count fifteen) with the four robbery

convictions (counts two, three, eleven and fourteen) because the court failed to

find aggravating factors justifying a consecutive sentence for count fifteen.

      In a supplemental certification, defendant argued that "based on new law

2021 (sic) his age must be taken into account as a factor to deter a consecutive

sentence."    A review of defendant's brief reveals that the supplemental

certification refers to defendant's argument that he is entitled to be resentenced

2
  Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §
2254 was dismissed as untimely by the United States District Court. Martin v.
Hendricks, No. Civ. A. 03-5885 (WHW) (June 21, 2006).
                                                                              A-1994-22
                                         6
at a hearing that considers his age at the time of his crimes by virtue of the

holding in State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246, 273 (2021).

      On October 19, 2022, the trial court issued an order denying defendant's

motion. The court concluded that "the motion to correct a sentence [is] not

authorized by law pursuant to [R.] 3:21-10(b)(5)."

      This appeal followed. Defendant raises the following arguments.

            POINT I

            DEFENDANT      RECEIVED   AN   ILLEGAL
            SENTENCE VIA [(SIC)] OF AN ADDITIONAL
            CONSECUTIVE THREE[-]YEAR MANDATORY
            MINIMUM THAT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
            CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURSUANT TO R.
            3:21-10(b)(5).

            POINT II

            DUE TO ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT AND NEW
            LAW DEFENDANT SHOULD RECEIVE A
            HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE
            YARBOUGH FACTORS FOR AN ILLEGAL
            SENTENCE VIA THE IMPOSITION OF AN
            ADDITIONAL CONSECUTIVE THREE[-]YEAR
            MANDATORY MINIMUM THAT IS NOT
            AUTHORIZED BY THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
            JUSTICE PURSUANT TO R. 3:21-10(b)(5).

            POINT III

            THE STATE MAY ARGUE COLLATERAL
            ESTOPPEL, BUT THE SENTENCING COURT
            NEVER APPLIED THE YARBOUGH FACTORS TO

                                                                        A-1994-22
                                       7
            THE FIRST CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE NOR THE
            SECOND      CONSECUTIVE     SENTENCE[.]
            [NEITHER] TRIAL COUNSEL NOR APPELLATE
            COUNSEL SOUGHT THE APPLICATION OF THE
            FACTORS WHICH REMAINS [(SIC)] BOTH
            DEFENDANT[']S CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
            ARE ILLEGAL.

                                        II.

      A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time. R. 3:21-

10(b)(5); State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295, 309 (2012). An illegal sentence

"exceed[s] the penalties authorized by statute for a specific offense." State v.

Murray, 162 N.J. 240, 246 (2000). "A sentence may also be illegal because it

was not imposed in accordance with law. This category includes sentences that,

although not in excess of the statutory maximum penalty," are not authorized by

statute. Id. at 247. "In addition, a sentence may not be in accordance with law

because it fails to satisfy required presentencing conditions" or "include a

legislatively mandated term of parole ineligibility." Ibid. We review de novo

the trial court's finding that a sentence is legal. Schubert, 212 N.J. at 303-04.

      Having carefully reviewed the record in light of these principles, we agree

with the trial court's conclusion that defendant offers no cogent argument that

the sentence imposed on him was illegal.          Defendant primarily reiterates

arguments raised in his direct appeal with respect to the trial court's imposition

                                                                             A-1994-22
                                        8
of consecutive sentences. We rejected those arguments. Our decision in the

direct appeal precludes his argument that his sentence is illegal because the

sentencing court misapplied the holding in Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 630. That

issue has been adjudicated and thoroughly addressed by this court and is,

therefore, not an appropriate basis for a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

See State v. Trantino, 60 N.J. 176, 180 (1972) (A prior adjudication on the merits

of an issue on direct appeal is conclusive and cannot be relitigated, even if of

constitutional dimension). As we previously held, the trial court's imposition of

consecutive sentences for the independent robberies, which resulted in the

murder of one man, and the shooting of multiple other victims, was appropriate

and imposed after the trial court's careful consideration of the record and the law

addressing sentencing.

      We are also not persuaded by defendant's argument that he is entitled to a

resentencing hearing pursuant to Torres. In Torres, issued nearly thirty years

after defendant was sentenced, the Court explained its intention "to underscore"

and "promote" the "concepts of uniformity, predictability, and proportionality"

that underlie the sentencing factors it set forth in Yarbough. 246 N.J. at 252-53.

The Court stated,

            [w]e reiterate the repeated instruction that a sentencing
            court's decision whether to impose consecutive

                                                                             A-1994-22
                                        9
            sentences should retain focus on "the fairness of the
            overall sentence." [State v.] Miller, 108 N.J. [112,] 122
            [(1987)]; see also State v. Abdullah, 184 N.J. 497, 515
            (2005). Toward that end, the sentencing court's
            explanation of its evaluation of the fairness of the
            overall sentence is "a necessary feature in any
            Yarbough analysis." [State v.] Cuff, 239 N.J. [321,]
            352 [(2019)].

            [Id. at 270.]

      The Court in Torres did not announce a new rule.           It renewed and

reemphasized the long-established requirement that a sentencing court provide

"an explanation of the overall fairness of [a] consecutive sentence . . . ." Ibid.

Because the Court did not create a new rule of law, retroactivity is not

applicable. State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 307 (2008); State v. Burstein, 85 N.J.

394, 403 (1981) (stating "retroactivity can arise only where there has been a

departure from existing law.").

      We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and conclude they

are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(2).

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1994-22
                                       10