Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Senger

April 8, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JEFFREY SENGER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 93-04-1101.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 14, 2008

Before Judges Gilroy and Baxter.

Defendant appeals from the July 6, 2006, order of the Law Division, denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

Tried to a jury, defendant was convicted of second-degree reckless manslaughter (a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder); fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon; and third-degree hindering apprehension. On April 28, 1994, defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to an extended term of twenty years of imprisonment, with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility on the conviction for reckless manslaughter. Lesser concurrent sentences were imposed on the other two convictions. Because the trial facts were disclosed at length in our prior opinion, State v. Senger, No. A-5811-93 (App. Div. March 21, 1996) (slip op. at 1-14), it is unnecessary for us to detail the evidence against defendant for these crimes. We affirmed the judgment of convictions and the sentences imposed. Id. at 12-14. On June 5, 1996, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Senger, 145 N.J. 371 (1996).

On November 18, 2003, almost nine-and-one-half-years post-entry of the judgment of convictions, defendant filed his pro se petition for PCR, asserting that the Prosecutor's Office had suppressed exculpatory evidence. On August 4, 2005, assigned counsel filed a supplemental brief, arguing:

POINT I.

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW AND OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL SINCE THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

POINT II.

THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS TRIAL COUNSEL [ELICITED] TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A "BURGLAR."

POINT III.

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL SINCE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO MOVE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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