On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, No. I-98-02-0103.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 12, 2008
Before Judges Wefing, Parker and LeWinn.
Tried to a jury, defendant was convicted of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1); conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; distribution of cocaine within one thousand feet of school property, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; conspiracy to distribute cocaine within one thousand feet of school property, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; possession of cocaine, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); and possession of a police scanner while in the course of committing a crime, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-22. The trial court granted the State's motion to sentence defendant to an extended term and imposed an aggregate term of ten years in prison, with five years of parole ineligibility. The sentencing court specified that defendant should serve this sentence concurrently to a sentence he was then serving in Pennsylvania. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence. We affirmed but remanded for re-sentencing in light of the intervening decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 487-89 (2005). State v. White, No. A-5368-03 (App. Div. June 28, 2006).*fn1 On remand, the same sentence was imposed.
Defendant thereafter filed a petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). He appeals from the trial court order denying his petition. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO MULTIPLE HEARSAY TESTIMONY THAT IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME AND WHICH HAD A CUMULATIVE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON THE MINDS OF THE JURY
TRIAL COUNSEL['S] PERFORMANCE FELL BELOW A STANDARD OF REASONABLE OBJECTIVENESS AND [P]REJUDICED THE DEFENDANT WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE A DEFENSE TO THE PROSECUTOR['S] CASE BY NOT INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL ALIBI WITNESSES PROVIDED BY THE DEFENDANT
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT HAVING DISCUSSED WITH THE DEFENDANT HIS CON[S]TITUTIONAL RIGHT ...