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. Green

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


January 18, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
HAROLD L. GREEN, A/K/A BASIM W. ABDULLAH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, 7-81-S.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 8, 2008

Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.

Defendant appeals from an order dated May 2, 2006 denying him post-conviction relief. The conviction occurred in 1982, and defendant's petition for post-conviction relief that he now appeals was filed on January 13, 2006. On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SINCE HIS FIRST (PCR) WAS NOT ADJUDICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECEPTS OF STATE V. CLARK, 260 N.J. SUPER. 559 (APP. DIV. 1992), AND THE PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS OF R. 3:22-4, AND R. 3:22-12, ARE INAPPLICABLE.

A.

A DEPRIVATION OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING FIRST (PCR) PROCEEDINGS.

B.

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A CRIME ("CORPUS DELICTI").

POINT II

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE APPELLANT'S SENTENCE IS "ILLEGAL" SINCE HE WAS CONVICTED OF A NONEXISTENT CRIME AND THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND HE WAS RENDERED AN INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF R. 3:22-12 (RAISED BELOW).

B.

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED BY DENYING THAT THE APPELLANT'S SENTENCE AND CONVICTION WAS ILLEGAL IN LIGHT OF THE RULING IN STATE V. BUTLER, 89 N.J. 220, 228 (1982).

C.

THE LAW DIVISION COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT VIOLATED THE HOLDINGS OF BUTLER, (SUPRA,), APPRENDI, BLAKELY, BOOKER, ABDULLAH, FRANKLIN AND NATALE BY ITS FACT-FINDING NEITHER ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT NOR HELD BY THE JURY. (RAISED BELOW).

After carefully considering the record and briefs, 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).

Affirmed.

20080118

© 1992-2008 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.