STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HUSSEIN DIGGS (98-05-2570, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3088-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- In 1999 a jury convicted Hussein Diggs of attempted murder, first-degree robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses; the trial court imposed an aggregate 50-year sentence with an 85% NERA parole bar.
- On appeal this Court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing because NERA’s 85% parole ineligibility had been applied to the extended term rather than the base term; the Court noted a Graves Act parole disqualifier of up to one-half the base term (i.e., 25 years) was appropriate.
- On remand the trial court imposed an aggregate 50-year term, giving Diggs a 50-year sentence on attempted murder with 25 years parole ineligibility under the Graves Act; Diggs did not appeal that resentencing.
- Diggs pursued post-conviction relief (PCR) and federal habeas, both denied; the state and federal courts affirmed prior rulings.
- In December 2015 Diggs moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the resentencing violated precedents (Andino, Allen, Manzie); Judge Petrolle summarily denied the motion as previously decided by the Appellate Division.
- Diggs appealed the denial; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding his argument lacked sufficient merit to warrant discussion and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Diggs’s motion to correct an illegal sentence | State: prior appellate decisions resolved the sentencing issue; motion barred | Diggs: remand required under Andino/Allen/Manzie and related authority to correct NERA/Graves Act application | Court: Affirmed denial; defendant’s argument lacked sufficient merit |
| Whether NERA (No Early Release Act) or Graves Act parole disqualifier was misapplied at resentencing | State: resentencing complied with Appellate Division direction (25-year Graves Act disqualifier on base term) | Diggs: resentencing conflicted with Appellate Division and line of cases limiting NERA’s scope | Court: Resentencing conformed to prior remand instructions; no relief granted |
| Whether defendant may relitigate sentencing after prior appeals and collateral review | State: procedural history and prior determinations preclude relitigation | Diggs: seeks reconsideration under intervening case law | Court: Prior appellate resolution and post-conviction history foreclose the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Manzie, 335 N.J. Super. 267 (App. Div. 2000) (discussing limits on NERA’s application to offenses with separate sentencing schemes)
- State v. Mosley, 335 N.J. Super. 144 (App. Div. 2000) (holding NERA does not apply to certain tender-years sexual assaults without physical force)
- State v. Thomas, 322 N.J. Super. 512 (App. Div. 1999) (addressing scope of NERA for specific offenses)
- State v. Parolin, 171 N.J. 223 (2002) (discussing legislative response and limitations on NERA after Appellate Division decisions)