On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 98-12-2285.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Coburn and Gilroy.
Defendant appeals from the December 2, 2005, order of the Law Division, denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
On December 15, 1998, defendant was charged by a Monmouth County Grand Jury under Indictment No. 98-12-2285 with first-degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (Count One); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (Count Two); and third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (Count Three). On January 11, 2000, pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to Count One in exchange for the State recommending a sentence of ten years with an 85% parole disqualifier, pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and dismissal of the remaining two counts of the indictment. The State also agreed that the sentence would run concurrent to any future sentences that may be imposed on convictions for charges then pending in Middlesex and Union Counties.
On June 16, 2000, defendant was sentenced on Count One as agreed by the State, and Counts Two and Three were dismissed. The judgment of conviction reflects that defendant received 441 days of jail credit and 11 days of gap-time credit. Defendant appealed arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive, unduly punitive, and constituted an abuse of the sentencing judge's discretion. We affirmed. State v. Stasicky, No. A-6613-99T4 (App. Div. May 15, 2001).
On August 4, 2004, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR. On June 17, 2005, defendant, through assigned counsel, filed an amended petition, arguing that: 1) the imposition of the parole disqualifier was illegal and violated his federal and state constitutional rights; 2) he was not informed that he could be incarcerated for more than the maximum of his base term because of the five-year mandatory NERA period of parole supervision; 3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by counsel not challenging the imposition of the NERA disqualifier; and 4) the judgment of conviction should be amended to include an additional 436 days of jail credit. On December 2, 2005, the PCR judge rendered a decision denying defendant's decision. A confirming order was entered the same day.
On appeal, defendant argues:
THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AN UNJUST RESULT BY ONLY AWARDING HALF OF DEFENDANT[']S PREDISPOSITIONAL JAIL CREDITS.
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM AT TRIAL BY THE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, ...