NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4608-14T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MANUEL WISPE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted February 28, 2017 – Decided June 30, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No.
87-02-0224.
Manuel Wispe, Jr., appellant pro se.
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Frances Tapia Mateo,
Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Manuel Wispe, Jr. appeals from a Law Division order
denying his reconsideration motion to reduce his sentence based
upon evidence of post-sentence rehabilitation. We affirm.
Defendant is serving a life sentence with thirty years of
parole ineligibility after a 1995 conviction for murder and weapons
offenses. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct
appeal. State v. Wispe, A-4893-94 (App. Div. Feb. 4, 1997),
certif. denied, 149 N.J. 407 (1997). Defendant filed two petitions
for post-conviction relief (PCR) that were denied. State v. Wispe,
A-6592-00 (App. Div. Dec. 30, 2002), certif. denied, 176 N.J. 72
(2003); State v. Wispe, A-0344-08 (App. Div. Apr. 14, 2010),
certif. denied, 203 N.J. 440 (2010). In deciding the issue before
us, we need not detail or summarize defendant's conviction, direct
appeal, or PCR petitions.
In 2014, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence
based upon the contention that he has been rehabilitated. Judge
Paul M. DePascale, citing State v. Towey, 244 N.J. Super. 582
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 159 (1990), and Pepper v.
United States, 562 U.S. 476, 131 S. Ct. 1229, 179 L. Ed. 2d 196
(2011), denied the motion on the grounds that defendant's sentence
was not previously set aside as his direct appeal and PCR petitions
were all rejected, thus, there was no legal basis to reconsider
his sentence. The judge also denied defendant's reconsideration
motion. In an April 13, 2015 letter opinion, the judge stated
that defendant's reliance on case law involving rehabilitation for
juveniles was misplaced, as he was an adult when the offenses
2 A-4608-14T2
occurred. The judge further pointed out that defendant's life
sentence with a thirty-year parole disqualifier was consistent
with law.
On appeal, defendant raises the following legal argument:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE,
THEREFORE, THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED.
Defendant specifically reiterates his contention that his sentence
should be reduced because of his significant rehabilitation
efforts in prison. We have considered this contention in light
of the record and applicable legal principles, and conclude it is
without sufficient merit to warrant a discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons
expressed by Judge DePascale in his well-reasoned letter opinion.
Affirmed.
3 A-4608-14T2