NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3131-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY MAY, a/k/a TONY MAY,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 7, 2025 – Decided May 29, 2025
Before Judges Rose and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 99-07-2630.
Anthony May, appellant pro se.
Theodore N. Stephens, II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Anthony May appeals from the May 8, 2024 Law Division
order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
I.
In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree felony
murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); two counts of second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A.
2C:18-2; and two counts of fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). He admitted murdering two elderly victims during
separate home invasion robberies. In exchange for the guilty pleas, the State
recommended dismissal of several charges and indictments against defendant.
On December 16, 2000, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with
the plea agreement to two mandatory thirty-year terms of imprisonment, each
with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility, to be served consecutively on
the felony murder convictions. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(1). The remaining
convictions were merged with the felony murder convictions. Thus, the court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of sixty years in prison with a sixty-
year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant filed an appeal of his sentence, arguing it was excessive. We
affirmed. State v. May, No. A-2693-00 (App. Div. Apr. 10, 2001). The Supreme
A-3131-23 2 Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. May, 170 N.J. 85
(2001).
More than ten years later, on February 3, 2012, defendant filed a petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The PCR court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred because it was
untimely filed under Rule 3:22-12(a). We affirmed. State v. May, No. A-3753-
13 (App. Div. May 6, 2015). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for
certification. State v. May, 223 N.J. 281 (2015).
Defendant's January 12, 2016 petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging his conviction was rejected by the United States District Court. May
v. Johnson, No. 16-0190 (MCA), 2019 WL 3987 (D.N.J. May 14, 2019), app.
denied sub nom., May v. Admin. N.J. State Prison, No. 19-2274, 2019 WL
6977446 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1212 (2020).
On September 26, 2017, defendant filed a second PCR petition. He
alleged ineffective assistance of trial and first PCR counsel. On August 21,
2018, the second PCR court entered an order denying the petition. Defendant
did not appeal that order.
On February 12, 2024, defendant moved "to reconsider the overall fairness
of [his] sentence consistent with State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (2021)[,] and State
A-3131-23 3 v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985)." In effect, defendant argued the sentencing
court did not explain why consecutive sentences would not have been "sufficient
instead of sentencing . . . [d]efendant to [sixty] years based upon the plea
agreement."
On May 8, 2024, the motion court issued a written decision denying
defendant's application. The court concluded defendant made no showing the
sentence he received was illegal. In addition, the court observed that defendant's
challenge to the length of his sentence was rejected by this court in his direct
appeal, precluding his present arguments. Finally, the motion court concluded
Torres did not announce a new rule and was, therefore, not retroactive and did
not require a new sentencing hearing. Instead, the court concluded, Torres
reiterated the principles announced in Yarbough requiring the sentencing court
to explain the overall fairness of consecutive sentences. Thus, a new sentencing
hearing was not required by Torres. A May 8, 2024 order memorialized the
motion court's decision.
This appeal follows. Defendant raises the following arguments.
POINT I
THE LOWER COUNT ERRED IN ITS DECISION, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO STATE V. TORRES, 246 N.J. 246
A-3131-23 4 (2021)[,] AND STATE V. YARBOUGH, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).
A) THE COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE "OVERALL FAIRNESS" ASPECT OF THE SENTENCE AND ERRED BY SOLELY RELYING ON THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S DECISION IN STATE V. MAY, [NO.] A-2693-00T4.
II.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time. R. 3:21-
10(b)(5); State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295, 309 (2012). An illegal sentence
"exceed[s] the penalties authorized by statute for a specific offense." State v.
Murray, 162 N.J. 240, 246 (2000). "A sentence may also be illegal because it
was not imposed in accordance with law. This category includes sentences that,
although not in excess of the statutory maximum penalty," are not authorized by
statute. Id. at 247. "In addition, a sentence may not be in accordance with law
because it fails to satisfy required presentencing conditions" or "include a
legislatively mandated term of parole ineligibility." Ibid. We review de novo
the motion court's finding that a sentence is legal. Schubert, 212 N.J. at 303-04.
Having reviewed the record in light of these principles, we agree with the
motion court's conclusion that defendant offers no cogent argument that the
sentence imposed on him was illegal. Defendant was sentenced in accordance
with law, receiving the mandatory minimum sentence for his convictions.
A-3131-23 5 Defendant essentially reiterates arguments raised in his direct appeal
challenging the sentencing court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We
rejected those arguments. Our decision in the direct appeal precludes
defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence based on his argument the
sentencing court misapplied Yarbough. The length of defendant's sentence has
been adjudicated and addressed by this court and is, therefore, not an appropriate
basis for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Trantino, 60 N.J.
176, 180 (1972) (stating a prior adjudication on the merits of an issue on direct
appeal is conclusive and cannot be relitigated, even if of constitutional
dimension).
In addition, the sentencing court considered non-consecutive sentences
and found "concurrent sentences would be a travesty of justice" for slitting the
throats of two elderly victims in their homes during separate robberies
perpetrated by defendant on separate dates to feed his drug habit. That
observation reflects the sentencing court's pronouncement on the overall
fairness of defendant's sentence.
We are not persuaded by defendant's argument he is entitled to a
resentencing hearing pursuant to Torres.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-3131-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY MAY, a/k/a TONY MAY,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 7, 2025 – Decided May 29, 2025
Before Judges Rose and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 99-07-2630.
Anthony May, appellant pro se.
Theodore N. Stephens, II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Anthony May appeals from the May 8, 2024 Law Division
order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
I.
In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree felony
murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); two counts of second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A.
2C:18-2; and two counts of fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). He admitted murdering two elderly victims during
separate home invasion robberies. In exchange for the guilty pleas, the State
recommended dismissal of several charges and indictments against defendant.
On December 16, 2000, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with
the plea agreement to two mandatory thirty-year terms of imprisonment, each
with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility, to be served consecutively on
the felony murder convictions. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(1). The remaining
convictions were merged with the felony murder convictions. Thus, the court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of sixty years in prison with a sixty-
year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant filed an appeal of his sentence, arguing it was excessive. We
affirmed. State v. May, No. A-2693-00 (App. Div. Apr. 10, 2001). The Supreme
A-3131-23 2 Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. May, 170 N.J. 85
(2001).
More than ten years later, on February 3, 2012, defendant filed a petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The PCR court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred because it was
untimely filed under Rule 3:22-12(a). We affirmed. State v. May, No. A-3753-
13 (App. Div. May 6, 2015). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for
certification. State v. May, 223 N.J. 281 (2015).
Defendant's January 12, 2016 petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging his conviction was rejected by the United States District Court. May
v. Johnson, No. 16-0190 (MCA), 2019 WL 3987 (D.N.J. May 14, 2019), app.
denied sub nom., May v. Admin. N.J. State Prison, No. 19-2274, 2019 WL
6977446 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1212 (2020).
On September 26, 2017, defendant filed a second PCR petition. He
alleged ineffective assistance of trial and first PCR counsel. On August 21,
2018, the second PCR court entered an order denying the petition. Defendant
did not appeal that order.
On February 12, 2024, defendant moved "to reconsider the overall fairness
of [his] sentence consistent with State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (2021)[,] and State
A-3131-23 3 v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985)." In effect, defendant argued the sentencing
court did not explain why consecutive sentences would not have been "sufficient
instead of sentencing . . . [d]efendant to [sixty] years based upon the plea
agreement."
On May 8, 2024, the motion court issued a written decision denying
defendant's application. The court concluded defendant made no showing the
sentence he received was illegal. In addition, the court observed that defendant's
challenge to the length of his sentence was rejected by this court in his direct
appeal, precluding his present arguments. Finally, the motion court concluded
Torres did not announce a new rule and was, therefore, not retroactive and did
not require a new sentencing hearing. Instead, the court concluded, Torres
reiterated the principles announced in Yarbough requiring the sentencing court
to explain the overall fairness of consecutive sentences. Thus, a new sentencing
hearing was not required by Torres. A May 8, 2024 order memorialized the
motion court's decision.
This appeal follows. Defendant raises the following arguments.
POINT I
THE LOWER COUNT ERRED IN ITS DECISION, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO STATE V. TORRES, 246 N.J. 246
A-3131-23 4 (2021)[,] AND STATE V. YARBOUGH, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).
A) THE COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE "OVERALL FAIRNESS" ASPECT OF THE SENTENCE AND ERRED BY SOLELY RELYING ON THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S DECISION IN STATE V. MAY, [NO.] A-2693-00T4.
II.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time. R. 3:21-
10(b)(5); State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295, 309 (2012). An illegal sentence
"exceed[s] the penalties authorized by statute for a specific offense." State v.
Murray, 162 N.J. 240, 246 (2000). "A sentence may also be illegal because it
was not imposed in accordance with law. This category includes sentences that,
although not in excess of the statutory maximum penalty," are not authorized by
statute. Id. at 247. "In addition, a sentence may not be in accordance with law
because it fails to satisfy required presentencing conditions" or "include a
legislatively mandated term of parole ineligibility." Ibid. We review de novo
the motion court's finding that a sentence is legal. Schubert, 212 N.J. at 303-04.
Having reviewed the record in light of these principles, we agree with the
motion court's conclusion that defendant offers no cogent argument that the
sentence imposed on him was illegal. Defendant was sentenced in accordance
with law, receiving the mandatory minimum sentence for his convictions.
A-3131-23 5 Defendant essentially reiterates arguments raised in his direct appeal
challenging the sentencing court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We
rejected those arguments. Our decision in the direct appeal precludes
defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence based on his argument the
sentencing court misapplied Yarbough. The length of defendant's sentence has
been adjudicated and addressed by this court and is, therefore, not an appropriate
basis for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Trantino, 60 N.J.
176, 180 (1972) (stating a prior adjudication on the merits of an issue on direct
appeal is conclusive and cannot be relitigated, even if of constitutional
dimension).
In addition, the sentencing court considered non-consecutive sentences
and found "concurrent sentences would be a travesty of justice" for slitting the
throats of two elderly victims in their homes during separate robberies
perpetrated by defendant on separate dates to feed his drug habit. That
observation reflects the sentencing court's pronouncement on the overall
fairness of defendant's sentence.
We are not persuaded by defendant's argument he is entitled to a
resentencing hearing pursuant to Torres. In Torres, issued nearly twenty-one
years after defendant was sentenced, the Court explained its intention "to
A-3131-23 6 underscore" and "promote" the "concepts of uniformity, predictability, and
proportionality" that underlie the sentencing factors it set forth in Yarbough.
246 N.J. at 252-53. The Court stated:
We reiterate the repeated instruction that a sentencing court's decision whether to impose consecutive sentences should retain focus on "the fairness of the overall sentence." [State v.] Miller, 108 N.J. [112,] 122 [(1987)]; see also State v. Abdullah, 184 N.J. 497, 515 (2005). Toward that end, the sentencing court's explanation of its evaluation of the fairness of the overall sentence is "a necessary feature in any Yarbough analysis." [State v.] Cuff, 239 N.J. [321,] 352 [(2019)].
[Id. at 270.]
The Torres Court did not announce a new rule. It renewed and
reemphasized the long-established requirement that a sentencing court provide
"an explanation of the overall fairness of [a] consecutive sentence . . . ." Ibid.
Because the Court did not create a new rule of law, retroactivity is not
applicable. State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 307-08 (2008); State v. Burstein, 85 N.J.
394, 403 (1981) ("[R]etroactivity can arise only where there has been a departure
from existing law."). A new sentencing hearing, therefore, is not required.
Affirmed.
A-3131-23 7