Court Opinion

ID: 9905411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 15:07:43.404687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:23.334124
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3901-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHARLES NOBLE, a/k/a
GERARD ALSTON, and
GERARD FURQUAN,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

                   Submitted November 15, 2023 – Decided November 29, 2023

                   Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 95-01-0101.

                   Charles Noble, appellant pro se.

                   Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
                   Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat,
                   Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
                   Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      In 1995, a jury convicted defendant Charles Noble of seven counts of first-

degree robbery, two counts of second-degree possession of a weapon for an

unlawful purpose and third-degree possession of a weapon, and single counts of

first-degree aggravated sexual assault, first-degree carjacking, second-degree

conspiracy to commit robbery, third-degree eluding, and third-degree receiving

stolen property. The court imposed an aggregate sixty-eight-year sentence with

a twenty-six-year period of parole ineligibility.

      We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence, State v. Noble (Noble

I), No. A-7474-95 (App. Div. Nov. 26, 1997) (slip op. at 16), and the Supreme

Court denied defendant's petition for certification, State v. Noble, 153 N.J. 52

(1998). The trial court later denied defendant's post-conviction relief (PCR)

petition, which in part challenged his sentence as excessive. We affirmed the

PCR court's decision, State v. Noble (Noble II), No. A-1989-07 (App. Div. Apr.

20, 2010) (slip op. at 7), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for

certification, State v. Noble, 205 N.J. 273 (2011).

      Defendant appeals from an order denying his Rule 3:21-10(b)(5) motion

to correct what he claims is an illegal sentence. Before the motion court,

defendant argued the trial court imposed an illegal sentence in 1995 by

improperly imposing consecutive sentences on some of the charges. Defendant

                                                                           A-3901-21
                                        2
also claimed the sentencing court did not consider or make findings concerning

the overall fairness of the aggregate sentence in accord with the Supreme Court's

decision in State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246, 268 (2021). Defendant further asserted

the New Jersey State Parole Board had sent him an April 14, 2022 letter stating

his aggregate sentence is sixty-eight years with of parole ineligibility term of

twenty-seven-years and eight months, which is eighteen months longer than the

period of parole imposed by the court at the 1995 sentencing.

      In a well-reasoned written decision, the motion court rejected defendant's

claims. The court found defendant's sentence is not illegal as excessive because

on his direct appeals from his convictions and the denial of his PCR petition, we

held the sentence was imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and

was therefore not excessive. See Noble I, slip op. at 14-16; Noble II, slip op. at

7.

      The motion court also rejected defendant's claim that his sentence was

illegal because the sentencing court imposed sentences on multiple offenses but

did not make an express finding as to the overall fairness of the sentence in

accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Torres, which in part

held a sentencing court must "explain[] the overall fairness of a sentence

imposed on a defendant for multiple offenses in a single proceeding or in

                                                                            A-3901-21
                                        3
multiple sentencing proceedings." 246 N.J. at 268. The motion court reasoned

that the sentencing court's failure to make a finding as to the overall fairness of

defendant's sentence did not render the sentence illegal or require resentencing

because the Court in Torres did not set forth a new rule of law and we otherwise

had affirmed the sentence imposed, see Noble I, slip op. at 16, and had twice

rejected defendant's claim the sentence is excessive, see ibid.; Noble II, slip op.

at 7.

        The motion court also addressed defendant's claim based on the Parole

Board's letter. Defendant asserted his sentence is illegal because the Parole

Board's letter stated he was required to serve a twenty-seven-and-one-half-year

period of parole ineligibility, and the sentencing court had imposed a twenty-

six-year period of parole ineligibility on his 1995 convictions.        The court

rejected defendant's claim, explaining it appeared the Parole Board's calculation

of defendant's parole ineligibility period includes a parole ineligibility term

imposed on other convictions following imposition of the sentence on the 1995

convictions. In addition, the court noted that to the extent the Parole Board had

erred in its determination of defendant's parole ineligibility term, defendant may

challenge the error directly with the Parole Board. Thus, the court determined

the Parole Board's letter did not establish that the sentence imposed on

                                                                             A-3901-21
                                        4
defendant's 1995 convictions, from which he sought relief in his motion, is

illegal.

       The motion court entered an order denying defendant's motion. This

appeal followed.       Defendant offers the following argument for our

consideration:

             POINT I

             THE LOWER COURT'S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S
             MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE
             IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT, CREDIBLE,
             EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THEREFORE, THE
             SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND A
             RESENTENCING    HEARING     SHOULD    BE
             ORDERED[.]

       We conduct a de novo review of a court's determination of whether a

sentence is illegal. State v. Drake, 444 N.J. Super. 265, 271 (App. Div. 2016).

On appeal, defendant reprises the arguments he presented to the motion court in

support of his claims the sentence imposed for his 1995 convictions is illegal

and should be corrected under Rule 3:21-10(b)(5).

       Defendant argues the motion court erred by rejecting his claims that his

sentence for the 1995 convictions is illegal based on the Parole Board's letter

explaining his current parole eligibility date and because the sentencing court in

1995 failed to assess and make findings as to the overall fairness of his sentence

                                                                            A-3901-21
                                        5
and to support its imposition of consecutive sentences. He also argues we should

reverse because the court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law

supporting its denial of defendant's motion as required under Rule 1:7-4(a).

      We have carefully considered defendant's arguments, find they are

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

3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the motion court's

thorough written decision. We add only the following brief comments.

      Contrary to defendant's contention, the order denying his motion to correct

what he claims is an illegal sentence is well-supported by the findings of fact

and conclusions of law set forth in the court's written statement of reasons. The

court fully complied with the requirement of Rule 1:7-4(a).

      We also observe that "[o]ur Supreme Court has explained '[t]here are two

categories of illegal sentences: those that exceed the penalties authorized for a

particular offense, and those that are not authorized by law.'" State v. Chavarria,

464 N.J. Super. 1, 6 (App. Div. 2020) (citing State v. Hyland, 238 N.J. 135, 145

(2019)). Defendant makes no showing his sentence falls within either category

of illegal sentences such that he is entitled to a correction of an illegal sentence

under Rule 3:21-10(b)(5). And, as the motion court correctly noted, we have

previously determined defendant's sentence was correctly imposed and is not

                                                                              A-3901-21
                                         6
excessive. Moreover, even if the sentencing court failed to make a finding as to

the overall fairness of the sentence as the Court in Torres explained is required,

246 N.J. at 269, that failure does not render defendant's sentence illegal, see

Hyland, 238 N.J. at 146 (explaining "even sentences that disregard controlling

case law or rest on an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court are legal so

long as they impose penalties authorized by statute for a particular offense and

include a disposition that is authorized by law").

      In sum, defendant's motion was properly denied because he failed to

demonstrate the sentence either exceeds the penalties authorized for the offenses

for which he was convicted or is not otherwise authorized by law. See ibid. We

accordingly affirm the court's order.

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-3901-21
                                        7