STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARTIN L. BASKERVILLEÂ (88-04-0524, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2089-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 15, 2017|
Check Treatment NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2089-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARTIN L. BASKERVILLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted October 18, 2017 – Decided November 15, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No.
88-04-0524.
Nancy C. Ferro, attorney for appellant (Ms.
Ferro, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Bergen County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Ian C. Kennedy,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Martin L. Baskerville appeals from an November 2,
2015 order awarding him, with the consent of the State, 1,693 days
of credit on his 1993 conviction for the 1987 crimes of first-
degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, fourth-degree aggravated
assault on a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(a), and
fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2. He appeals from
the denial of his request for a reduced sentence. We affirm.
In between his arrest and his trial on the New Jersey charges,
defendant was convicted of murder in New York State. After his
New Jersey trial, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison
consecutive to the lengthy sentence imposed in New York. Defendant
unsuccessfully appealed his New York conviction, People v.
Baskerville, 234 A.D.2d 35(N.Y. App. Div. 1996), and appealed his conviction in New Jersey as well. See State v. Baskerville, Nos. A-5050-11, A-2151-12 (App. Div. Oct. 23, 2014) (slip op. at 1-3) (containing a history of defendant's prior New Jersey litigation) (certif. denied,223 N.J. 271
(2015)).
On this appeal, defendant argues:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT
DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE AND RE-SENTENCE HIM TO
THE PRESUMPTIVE TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS AND RUN
THE SENTENCE CONCURRENT TO HIS NEW YORK
SENTENCE TO CORRECT THE GRAVE INJUSTICES WHICH
HAVE BEEN INFLICTED ON DEFENDANT.
Defendant argues that because he was given jail credit in New
Jersey for the day that the New York murder was committed, and is
therefore not guilty of the New York murder, New Jersey should
equitably change his sentence to allow his immediate release. We
2 A-2089-15T2
have previously determined that defendant's application for a
concurrent sentence was without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion, pursuant to Rule 2:11-3(e)(2).
Id. at 4.
Defendant maintains that New York was unwilling to accept the
documentation of defendant's incarceration in New Jersey. New
Jersey has no jurisdiction to review a New York conviction, nor
does defendant point to legal authority for modifying a sentence
imposed more than twenty years ago "in the interest of justice"
due to a purportedly wrongful conviction in another jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
3 A-2089-15T2
