STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SCOTT LIPPINCOTT (2014)

Defendant Scott Lippincott appeals the denial of a motion to vacate custodial sentences imposed following his plea of guilty to violations of probation and to commission of a third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1b(2), which defendant committed while on probation.   That order was entered on the last of several motions for reconsideration.

The sentences at issue are set forth in judgments of conviction entered on April 16, 2010 concerning charges in two indictments and one accusation.   They reflect that defendant was sentenced as follows:  a five-year term of imprisonment for aggravated assault, on Accusation No. 10–03–692;  a concurrent five-year term on revocation of the probationary term he received on his conviction for possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39–4, on Indictment No. 03–09–3343;  and a concurrent four-year term on revocation of the probationary term he received on his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35–10a(1), on Indictment No. 05–01–397.   Each judgment reflects that defendant was awarded “negotiated” jail credits.

On appeal defendant raises this question:

CAN A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE CHANGE A SENTENCE FROM STATE PRISON TO PROBATION AND/OR EXTEND THE NUMBER OF YEARS PAST THE YEARS OF THE PRISON SENTENCE AND CAN A JUDGE CHANGE OR ALTER IN ANY WAY A SENTENCE THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY SERVED AND MAXED OUT ON BY A DEFENDANT?

Defendant does not challenge the validity of his conviction.   His appeal relates solely to the imposition of sentences following his plea of guilty to two violations of probation.   The sentences he received for those violations were fully concurrent with one another and with the sentence he received for the new conviction.   Because defendant was released from the custody of the Department of Corrections on January 13, 2013, the issues presented are moot.   See State ex rel. C.V., 201 N.J. 281, 286 (2010) (recognizing that an objection to a sentence that had been completed was moot but considering the issue because of its public importance).   As this case raises no issue of public importance, it is dismissed.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM