January 9, 2009
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
EDWARD ALFANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 93-06-1034.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 16, 2008
Before Judges Skillman and Grall.
A jury found defendant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a); one count of sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); another count of sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c); and endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to a ten-year term of imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault and concurrent five-year terms for the sexual assaults. The court merged defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child into his other convictions.
On appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions in an unreported opinion. State v. Alfano, No. A-2949-00 (May 23, 2003). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 178 N.J. 453 (2004).
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, following which the trial court issued a lengthy written opinion denying the petition.
This opinion also indicated that the court would enter an amended judgment of conviction modifying defendant's sentence. However, that amended judgment has not been provided to us and no issue regarding defendant's sentence has been raised on this appeal.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
POINT ONE: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE THE STATE'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE VICTIM'S PSE TAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
POINT TWO: DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND/OR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BASED ON THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.
We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Paley's February 28, 2005 written decision. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.