Did the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division err in concluding consecutive sentences imposed outside petitioner's presence was not contrary to established federal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : : 1. DID. THE. NEW. JERSEY SUPERIOR. COURT APPELLATE DIVISION. ERR IN CONCLUDING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED OUTSIDE PETITIONER;S PRESENCE IN. OPEN COURT. SOME NINETEENTH DAYS. AFTER. THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES HAD BEEN {MPOSED IN. OPEN COURT WITHOUT SPECIRCTIONS WAS NOT ; TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW AS DECIDED BY THE. SUPREME COURT FOR THE REASONS BELOW? , A, During the Original May 5, 1989 Sentencing Proceeding When The , Law Division Court Was Afforded Two Choices in Considering Whether | ‘ Defendant's Should Serve The. New Jersey Sentence Consecutive Or. | Concurrent With His Maryland Sentence As The Sentencing Transcript Reflects Judge Schroth. Did Not. Chose The..Former. Contrary. To The. ' Appellate Division Erroneous Conclusions. | . B. No Provisions In The New Jersey Code Or Rules Affords The Law | Division Judge With Legal Authority To Choose To Increase. The Original | Sentence Out Of His.Presence In Open Court To Run Consecutive With , The Maryland Sentence Some Nineteenth Days After The Defendant Had Left The Courtroom. C.. The. Prosecution Had Not. Raised. Any. Procedural Claims in The. Law ; | Division Court In Opposition To The Defendant's Motion To. Correct An : legal Sentence Nor Were There Any Adjudicate In That.Court Or Raised As A-Claim On Appeal. . D: The. Superior Court Appellate Division Commit Error in Sua Sponte Concluding That The Petitioner's Appeal Was Procedurally Barred For Several Reasons.. E. Petitioner's Motion To Correct An Illegal Sentence. As Grounds. Why. The . New. Jersey Sentence Should.Run Concurrent To His Maryland. Sentence Were: Completely Distinguishable Claims And Did Not. Represent A : Renewing Of Claims Previously In Adjudicated In Collins, F. Alternatively The. Conclusion Reached jin Collins, 1, Cannot. Procedurally Barred The Collins From Raising Other Claims Why The Consecutiveness : Of The Two.Sentences Constitute An Illegal Sentence. I DID THE NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION ERR. IN. CONCLUDING. CUNNINGHAM. V. CALIFORNIA. WAS_ FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND RULED A CHALLENGE IS NOT " COGNIZABLE BY WAY OF A MOTION TO CORRECT AN. ILLEGAL SENTENCE SINCE THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE. CONTRARY TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW AS DECIDED BY THE A.. The Appellate. Division's: Conclusions That The U.S. . ; Supreme Court Holdings In Cunningham Were Factually : , Distinguishable From The Collins's Case Are Contrary To Clearly Establish Federal Law As Decided By The Supreme Court. .