November 5, 2007
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
KEVIN RASHAD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 03-03-0940.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 23, 2007
Before Judges Skillman and LeWinn.
Defendant was indicted for armed robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; and unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b.
Defendant entered into a plea bargain under which the State agreed to amend the armed robbery charge to a charge of theft from the person and to recommend a probationary sentence, subject to time served. The State also agreed to dismiss the other charges against defendant. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea bargain to a two-year term of probation, subject to time served, which was 575 days as of the date of sentencing.
On defendant's direct appeal, which was heard on this court's excessive sentence calendar, see R. 2:9-11, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State v. Rashad, No. A-0018-04T4 (Dec. 14, 2004). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 183 N.J. 217 (2005).
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged that he "was forced to plead guilty by [his attorney] who lied to [him] repeatedly and assisted the prosecutor in forcing a guilty plea." The trial court denied defendant's petition by an oral opinion delivered on May 5, 2006.
On appeal from the denial of his petition, defendant presents the following argument:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AS THE RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THAT COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE WAS INEFFECTIVE AND THAT BUT FOR THIS INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION, THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10.
We reject this argument and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Theemling's oral opinion of May 5, 2006. Defendant's argument does not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.