On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, No. 01-11-0607.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing and Lyons.
Defendant appeals from a trial court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
A jury convicted defendant of distribution of cocaine, a crime of the third degree, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(3) and distribution of cocaine within five hundred feet of certain public property, a crime of the second degree, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1. The prosecution moved for an extended-term sentence based upon defendant's prior record. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f). The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison, with a four-year period of parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Worsham, No. A-2680-03T4 (App. Div. Feb. 28, 2005).*fn1
Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR. After oral argument, the trial court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND POST CONVICTION RELIEF
B. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT GRANTING A REASONABLE ADJOURNMENT FOR HIS RETAINED TRIAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW OR MAKE DISCOVERY SO THAT SAID COUNSEL COULD REPRESENT HIM IN LIGHT OF DEFENDANT'S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL
C. DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ALIBI DEFENSE BY IMPROPERLY STIPULATING TO DEFENDANT'S IDENTIFICATION, FAILURE TO FILE AN ALIBI NOTICE AND FAILURE TO CALL ANY ALIBI WITNESSES
D. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY NOT SEEKING THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 516 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMANT (Not raised below)
POINT II THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ALLOWED THE STATE'S VOIR DIRE QUESTION TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION WHICH DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND THE RIGHT TO ...