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. Charriez

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


June 20, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHARRIEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, 00-02-0235.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted June 10, 2008

Before Judges Stern and Coburn.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

After defendant was charged with murder and related offenses, he entered into a negotiated plea with the State pursuant to which he pled guilty to the lesser included offense of aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant received a prison sentence of twenty-five years subject to the No Early Release Act. He appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive, and we affirmed. He then filed the petition for post-conviction relief, which is the subject of this appeal.

On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED BY R. 3:22-2(C) AND R. 3:22-5.

POINT II

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION WHERE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF SENTENCING COUNSEL WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT VIABLE MITIGATING EVIDENCE.

POINT III

THE ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANT'S PRO SE BRIEF, IF ANY, SUPPORT HIS REQUEST FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that, apart from Point I, all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Veneble in her oral opinion of August 7, 2006. The Point I argument is moot since the judge also ruled on the merits.

Affirmed.

20080620

© 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.