NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2439-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARTIN TACCETTA, a/k/a MARTIN R. TACCETTA, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Argued March 2, 2022 – Decided June 29, 2022 Before Judges Gilson, Gooden Brown and Gummer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 91-04-0063. Lawrence S. Lustberg argued the cause for appellant (Gibbons PC, attorneys; Lawrence S. Lustberg and Anne M. Collart, on the briefs). Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Steven A. Yomtov, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM In 1993, a jury convicted defendant Martin Taccetta of racketeering, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(c) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6; conspiracy to commit racketeering, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(b) to (d); and two counts of theft by extortion, N.J.S.A. 2C:20- 5 and 2C:2-6. His racketeering conviction was deemed a first-degree crime because it was based on predicate acts of extortion that had involved threats of violence. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3(a). In 1997, we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on his direct appeal. State v. Taccetta (Taccetta I), 301 N.J. Super. 227 (App. Div. 1997). Twelve years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). State v. Taccetta (Taccetta IV), 200 N.J. 183 (2009). On this appeal, defendant appeals from the denial of his third PCR petition and a motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence. Defendant challenges only his sentence on the racketeering conviction, arguing that he was illegally sentenced to a first-degree crime when he should have been sentenced to a second-degree crime. In that regard, defendant contends that under more recent precedent from the United States Supreme Court, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3(a), which provides that racketeering is a first-degree crime if it involves a "crime of violence," is unconstitutionally vague. We reject that argument because A-2439-19 2 defendant's sentence was based on the specific facts that he extorted monies based on threats of violence. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying defendant's third PCR petition and his motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence. I. The charges against defendant arose out of his membership in the Lucchese crime family and his involvement with the La Cosa Nostra, an organization of several crime families. See generally State v. Cagno, 211 N.J. 488, 494-95 (2012) (describing the structure of La Cosa Nostra). Defendant and several co-defendants were indicted for offenses related to murder, extortion, and promoting illegal gambling. Defendant was indicted for five crimes: second-degree conspiracy to commit racketeering; first-degree racketeering; first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2), N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6; and two counts of second-degree theft by extortion. The extortion charges against defendant alleged that he and his co-defendants had committed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals