Per Curiam.
This second post-conviction application based primarily upon alleged exeessiveness of sentence was barred since a prior post-conviction application on the same ground was determined adversely to defendant and not appealed. B. 3:22 — 3; 3 :22-5. Moreover, alleged excessiveness of sentence is not an appropriate ground of post-conviction relief, but only a ground for direct appeal from the conviction unless the sentence is “in excess of or otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law”. B. 3:22-2. This is not such a case.
There is no merit in the additional claim of absence of speedy trial.
Affirmed.