On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, Indictment No. 80-0204.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 31, 2007
Before Judges Parker and R. B. Coleman.
Defendant Leroy Camp appeals from an order entered on September 19, 2006 denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We have considered the arguments advanced on this appeal in light of the facts and applicable law, and we affirm the order from which defendant appeals.
On November 4, 1981, a jury found defendant guilty of the offenses charged in the Cape May County Indictment No. 80-0204*fn1 relating to events occurring on December 5, 1980, when Josephine Trombetta was brutalized and killed. Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court sentenced defendant on December 21, 1981, as follows: for first degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 (count one), to a term of life in prison, subject to twenty-five years of parole ineligibility; for first degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)(2), (count two), to a term of twenty years, subject to ten years parole ineligibility; for first degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(3) (5) and (6), and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 (count four), to a term of twenty years, subject to ten years parole ineligibility; for second degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count five), to a term of five years, subject to two years of parole ineligibility; and for second degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) (count six), to a term of ten years, subject to five years of parole ineligibility. The sentences were imposed consecutive to each other and consecutive to a sentence imposed for a parole violation.
On February 2, 1982, defendant appealed from the December 21, 1981 judgment of conviction and in an unpublished opinion, we affirmed. State v. Camp, No. A-2339-81T4 (App. Div. May 9, 1983) (slip. op. at 5). On July 7, 1983, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Camp, 94 N.J. 575 (1983). Defendant also pursued relief through federal habeas corpus petitions. On May 25, 1993, the federal court dismissed defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and on September 14, 2000, the federal court dismissed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On March 27, 2002, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR, which was denied on May 6, 2002. On January 13, 2004, we reversed that denial and remanded for assignment of counsel. Our reversal of the PCR petition was based solely on the fact that defendant was not represented and had not waived his right to counsel. On September 19, 2006, the PCR petition was again denied and defendant appeals.
In this appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND CALL A KEY DEFENSE WITNESS.
B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION OF GASKILL'S VEHICLE.
C. TRIAL COUNSEL DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY.
POINT II: THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE CUMULATIVE ERRORS BY COUNSEL AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT III: THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.
POINT IV: THE LOWER COURT ORDER MUST BE REVERSED SINCE THE SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED.
A. THE SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND ILLEGAL.
B. THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTLY HARSH.
C. THE SENTENCE IS FAR HARSHER THAN THAT IMPOSED UPON A CO-DEFENDANT AND ...