September 24, 2008
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
GEORGE VASQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 99-04-0347.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 9, 2008
Before Judges Skillman and Collester.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of persons not to be in possession of weapons, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b; possession of a prohibited weapon (sawed-off shotgun), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3b; and the petty disorderly persons offense of harassment, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of fourteen years imprisonment, with seven years of parole ineligibility, for the offense of persons not to be in possession of weapons and concurrent sentences for the other offenses.
On appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.
State v. Vasquez, No. A-6142-01 (Oct. 5, 2004), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 630 (2005).
In March 2005, defendant filed a petition for post- conviction relief. Judge Clark denied the petition by a comprehensive letter opinion dated March 27, 2007.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
POINT I: DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF WHEN ALL ATTORNEYS FAILED TO DEFEND CLAIMS MADE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF MY 6th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT II: I REQUIRE A HEARING AS TO MY COMPETENCY TO PROCEED AT A CRITICAL STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND MY ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION TO PROCEED PRO SE.
POINT III: AS PER THE RULES OF THE COURT, MY PRO SE SUBMISSION AT MINIMUM REQUIRES RESPONSE IN WRITING FROM THE STATE, AND A DECISION FROM THE COURT.
POINT IV: DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Clark's letter opinion. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We only note that there is no factual support in the record for defendant's new argument that his waiver of counsel with respect to the petition for post-conviction relief was ineffective because he was not mentally competent to make such a waiver. Affirmed.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.