On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 02-07-2673.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Grall.
Defendant pled guilty on February 6, 2003 of having committed first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2); third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 4(d); third-degree receipt of stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7; and second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b). Other charges were dismissed at that time. The plea form executed by the parties did not indicate any limitation on the sentence that would be imposed other than the statutory maximum aggregate sentence, which the plea form indicated to be forty-five years.
At the time defendant pled guilty, he indicated that he understood the nature of the charges, his satisfaction with counsel, and the maximum penalties that could be imposed. Defendant was sentenced on April 28, 2003. At that time, defendant argued and the State agreed that the robbery conviction and the weapon conviction merged for sentencing purposes. Following that merger, the judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seventeen years with an 85% period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant appealed. His appeal was placed on an excessive sentence oral argument calendar. On April 28, 2005, after hearing the argument of defendant's counsel that the sentence was excessive, we affirmed. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification on July 14, 2005. 185 N.J. 38 (2005).
On August 22, 2005, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was assigned counsel, and the trial judge heard the argument of counsel on February 14, 2007.
On the same day, for reasons set forth in an oral decision, the judge denied the petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant appeals the February 14, 2007 order, presenting the following arguments for our consideration:
I. SINCE PETITIONER WAS WRONGLY TOLD THAT HE FACED A POSSIBLE AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF 45 YEARS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY A 35 YEAR EXPOSURE HIS PLEA WAS NOT KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY AND MUST BE VACATED
II. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ERRONEOUSLY ADVISING [PETITIONER] REGARDING THE CORRECT SENTENCE EXPOSURE PURSUANT TO HIS PLEA
III. APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE FAILURE TO ADVISE PETITIONER ABOUT THE CORRECT ...