On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 81-1794.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Lintner and Alvarez.
On May 4, 1983, defendant Michael Jones was found guilty of all counts on Mercer County Indictment 1794-81 which charged him with conspiracy to escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5(a); escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5(a); criminal restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2(a); two counts of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3; possession of a prohibited device, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(a); possession of a destructive device for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(c); arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(1); risking widespread injury or damage, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(c); possession of implements for escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-6(a); and possession of a weapon by a convicted person, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7. Accordingly, on September 16, 1983, defendant was sentenced to a total of fifty years, subject to twenty-five years of parole ineligibility, to run consecutive to the life sentence he was then serving. The charges resulted from a failed escape by defendant and others from Trenton State Prison.
Defendant filed his first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition on August 27, 1998, nearly fifteen years after the sentencing date. It was subsequently denied as time-barred under R. 3:22-12(a). On November 19, 1998, defendant filed a second petition, making the same claims as he did in the first. This second PCR petition was also denied. In August 2001, defendant filed a third PCR petition, which he claimed he wanted to pursue pro se. That motion was also denied on the grounds of R. 3:22-12 and R. 3:22-5. We ultimately remanded the matter so that defendant could be assigned counsel and have the matter reconsidered.
On the remand, in a thorough and well-reasoned written opinion, Judge Mathesius again denied defendant's PCR petition as essentially being out-of-time under R. 3:22-12(a). We have carefully reviewed the record and, in light of the applicable law, conclude that defendant's contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We concur and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mathesius in his comprehensive and well reasoned written opinion of August 24, 2006.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...