NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5638-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SEAN TALIAFERRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted January 19, 2017 – Decided September 13, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No.
05-09-2009.
Sean Taliaferro, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Garima Joshi, Deputy
Attorney General, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Sean Taliaferro appeals the May 5, 2015 order of
the Criminal Part denying his pro se motion to correct an illegal
sentence which was imposed by the trial court on August 8, 2008.
We affirm.
Defendant was tried before a jury on February 15 and 16,
2006, and convicted of second degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1,
third degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, and
third degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b. On March 31, 2006, the
trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of seventeen
years on the robbery conviction, with an eighty-five percent period
of parole ineligibility and five years of parole supervision
pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The
court imposed a term of five years, with two-and-one-half years
of parole ineligibility on the convictions for receiving stolen
property and eluding, to run concurrent to each other but
consecutive to the seventeen-year term imposed on the robbery.
We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal, but
remanded for the trial court to resentence because, in imposing
the extended term on the second degree robbery conviction, the
judge failed to follow the sentencing procedures set forth in
State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 169 (2006) and State v. Natale, 184
N.J. 458, 466 (2005). State v. Taliaferro, No. A-6012-05 (App.
Div. Jan. 11, 2008) (slip op. at 26-28). Specifically, the judge
"made no reference and gave no consideration to the bottom of the
original term range[.]" Id. at 27. The Supreme Court thereafter
2 A-5638-14T1
denied defendant's petition for certification. State v.
Taliaferro, 195 N.J. 419 (2008).
On August 8, 2008, the trial court followed the procedural
guidelines established by the Court in Pierce and Natale and
imposed the same sentence. On September 11, 2008, defendant filed
a post-conviction (PCR) petition. The PCR court assigned counsel
to represent defendant and permitted defendant to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Defendant claimed he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel both at trial and in his subsequent appeal.
On June 25, 2009, the PCR judge found no grounds for relief and
denied defendant's petition. In response to defendant's appeal,
we affirmed the denial of his PCR petition. After reviewing the
record, we concluded that "none of defendant's attorneys was
ineffective in his defense." State v. Taliaferro, No. A-2055-09
(App. Div. Feb. 4, 2011) (slip op. at 11). The Supreme Court
denied defendant's petition for certification. State v.
Taliaferro, 207 N.J. 35 (2011).
The United States District Court of New Jersey thereafter
denied defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief. Taliaferro
v. Balicki, Civ. No. 11-4714 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2013). On June 29,
2014, the Criminal Part denied defendant's pro se motion for a new
trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence. We affirmed
the Criminal Part's order. State v. Taliaferro, No. A-3056-12
3 A-5638-14T1
(App. Div. Dec. 5, 2014) (slip op at 12). The Supreme Court denied
defendant's petition for certification. State v. Taliaferro, 222
N.J. 15 (2015).
In this appeal, defendant challenges the May 5, 2015 order
entered by Judge Bernard E. DeLury, Jr., which denied his pro se
motion to correct an illegal sentence. We will not recite the
facts that led to defendant's conviction. Instead, we incorporate
by reference the factual recitation included in our previous
unpublished opinions mentioned herein. Here, defendant raises the
following argument.
POINT ONE
TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL EXTENDED TERM
SENTENCE.
Defendant's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm
substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge DeLury in his
letter-opinion dated May 5, 2015.
Affirmed.
4 A-5638-14T1