State v. Pierce

Jun 28, 1971
Reporters:
,
Before:
Conford, Kolovsky, Carton (per curiam)

PER CURIAM.

This second post-conviction application based primarily upon alleged excessiveness of sentence was barred since a prior post-conviction application on the same ground was determined adversely to defendant and not appealed. R. 3:22-3; 3:22-5. Moreover, alleged excessiveness of sentence is not an appropriate ground of post-conviction relief, but only a ground for direct appeal from the conviction unless the sentence is “in excess of or otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law“. R. 3:22-2. This is not such a case.

There is no merit in the additional claim of absence of speedy trial.

Affirmed.