Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Aikens

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


July 25, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ANTOINE AIKENS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 98-07-735.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 10, 2007

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Grall.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to first- degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a). He was sentenced on the former to a twenty-year term of imprisonment, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility, and on the latter to a concurrent term of fifteen years, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility.

The judge also ordered that defendant serve a five-year period of supervised parole following his release from prison. A subsequent motion to reduce the sentence was denied. Defendant appealed and the matter was placed on our excessive sentencing calendar. We affirmed by order entered on September 16, 2003. Docket No. A-0401-02T4. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification on March 9, 2004. 179 N.J. 371 (2004).

On December 13, 2004, defendant filed a petition for post- conviction relief. After hearing the argument of counsel, the trial judge denied that petition by way of an oral decision rendered on June 29, 2006.

Defendant has appealed the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief, and raised the following arguments for our consideration:

I. THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW SENTENCING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE.

II. THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20070725

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.