On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 95-09-1537-I.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 10, 2009
Before Judges Graves and Ashrafi.
In 1998, a jury convicted defendant Charles Mitzenius, an Abbot in the Episcopal Church, of sexual crimes involving young members of the church. He is serving an aggregate sentence of twenty-four years imprisonment at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel. He appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).
Having reviewed the record of proceedings in the PCR court, relevant parts of the trial transcripts, and the several briefs filed for this appeal, we now affirm denial of his petition for a new trial or re-sentencing.
A detailed statement of the evidence developed at trial is not relevant to this appeal. A twelve-year old boy and his mother reported to the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office that defendant had initiated sexual activity with the boy on overnight trips. Through the investigation that followed, three other teenage boys and a twenty-six year old man made allegations of sexual activity with the defendant arising from his role as their church mentor. Defendant was indicted on twelve counts and stood trial for three weeks before a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on eight counts and not guilty on three others. One count had previously been dismissed by the court.
Defendant was sentenced on May 22, 1998. On count one, first-degree aggravated sexual assault, he was sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment with a five-year period of parole ineligibility. On count five, second-degree sexual assault, he was sentenced to eight years with a three-year period of parole ineligibility to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on count one. He received concurrent terms of imprisonment on the other six counts of conviction. The judgment of conviction was entered by the court on May 26, 1998.
Defendant filed an appeal arguing that: (1) the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence, (2) the prejudicial effect of testimony involving alleged sexual assaults outside New Jersey far outweighed its probative value, (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of taped telephone conversations between defendant and one of the young victims, and (4) the trial court erroneously failed to suspend the trial when defendant was not mentally competent to continue his trial testimony. This court rejected these arguments and affirmed the judgment of conviction in an unpublished opinion. State v. Mitzenius, No. A-5579-97T3 (App. Div. Apr. 13, 2000). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 165 N.J. 531 (2000).
On August 31, 2005, more than seven years after his conviction, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On October 9, 2006, assigned counsel for defendant filed an amended petition. The trial court heard argument and denied the petition on January 12, 2007.
The brief filed on behalf of defendant by assigned PCR counsel raises seventeen points of argument to set aside defendant's conviction and sentence. In his own pro se brief, defendant has raised numerous additional points, mostly directed to alleged errors in the grand jury proceedings and at trial. Many of defendant's pro se arguments are rambling and incomprehensible. The following partial duplication of point headings in the table of contents provides the best summary of the additional arguments raised by defendant on his own behalf*fn1
FIRST DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT WAS A TOTAL ERROR BY THE TRIAL JUDGE TO DENY THIS MOTION AND LED TO JURY TRIAL WITH NO JURISDICTION.
A: A FRIVOLOUS CONTENTION, JURISDICTION IS A COURT JUDGES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE PREJUDICE, OR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE WAIVED.
B: THE COURT JUDGE OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION COURT NEVER LOOKED AT THE INDICTMENT AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
C: DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, PURSUANT TO R. 3:22-2(b), BECAUSE THE INDICTMENT WAS SO FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE SPECIFIC UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE A PROSECUTABLE CRIME.
STRUCTURAL ERROR. THE FIRST DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT. THE SECOND DEFENSE COUNSEL RENEWED THE MOTION.
A: THE GRAND JURY WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO ELEMENTS OF PENETRATION IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
B: THE MEDICAL REPORT WAS TOTALLY HID FROM THE GRAND JURY, A BRADY LAW VIOLATION, THAT MADE A LIAR OF VICTIM C.H.
C: DEFENDANT WAS TRIED IN NEW JERSEY COURT FOR ALLEGED CRIMES THE STATE HAD NO TERRITORIAL ...