On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 89-03-0383.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 20, 2008
Before Judges Reisner and Sapp-Peterson.
Defendant Willie Goodman appeals from the June 9, 2006 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) and from the August 11, 2006 order denying his petition for reconsideration. We affirm.
In October 1991, following a jury trial on a multi-count indictment, defendant was convicted of third-degree conspiracy to commit terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (Count 1); third-degree witness tampering, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a)(1) (Count 14); and third-degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(a)(3) (Count 15). Defendant received an aggregate custodial sentence of ten years with a five-year period of parole ineligibility. On direct appeal, we affirmed. State v. Willie Goodman, Docket No. A-3695-91T4 (App. Div. February 28, 1995) (slip op. at 20). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Goodman, 142 N.J. 514 (1995). On February 17, 1999, defendant moved for a new trial. The trial court denied defendant's motion and we affirmed the trial court decision on appeal. State v. Goodman, Docket No. A-2584-99T4 (App. Div. February 26, 2001) (slip op. at 1). On November 5, 2001, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification.
On September 9, 2004, defendant filed a pro se petition of writ of error coram nobis before the United States District Court, which dismissed the petition as not properly before it. Thereafter, defendant filed a similar petition in Superior Court, which the court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. The court assigned post-conviction relief counsel, and defendant's attorney filed an amended petition and supplemental brief on defendant's behalf. On June 9, 2006, following a hearing, the court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition on the basis that the petition was procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5 and -12. The court subsequently denied defendant's motion for reconsideration. The present appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant, through appellate counsel, raises the following points for our consideration:
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FAILING TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.
TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE DEFENDANT'S ALIBI WITNESS CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO UTILIZE IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE TOTALLY DISCREDITED THE STATE'S ...