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. Briscoe

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


November 8, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
GARNETT BRISCOE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, 98-12-4323-I.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 30, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.

In 1998, defendant was indicted for murder and six other related charges. On January 24, 2000, the parties entered into a plea agreement, and defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter and second-degree aggravated assault.

The plea agreement provided that defendant could be sentenced to as much as imprisonment for forty years with thirty-four years to be served with parole. The No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 applied, and defendant waived his right to appeal pursuant to R. 3:9-3(d). The judge imposed consecutive maximum sentences, resulting in an aggregate term that did not exceed the plea agreement.

Defendant appealed, his sentence was affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certification. Defendant then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. At the hearing he was represented by counsel. After considering the briefs and arguments, the judge entered an order denying the petition. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT ONE

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

POINT TWO

THE WITHIN MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED SO THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL MAY BE CONDUCTED.

POINT THREE

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (NOT RAISED BELOW).

After carefully considering the briefs and record, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). And as to the first two points raised by defendant, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge McNeill in his oral opinion of June 23, 2006.

Affirmed.

20071108

© 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.