Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Tetelman

April 27, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSEPH TETELMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 98-05-0574.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 21, 2009

Before Judges Fuentes and Gilroy.

Defendant Joseph Tetelman appeals from the order of the Law Division, Criminal Part denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of third-degree theft of a motor vehicle after a three-day trial that began on December 15, 1998, and ended on December 17, 1998.*fn1 The court sentenced defendant on February 19, 1999, to a term of four years to run concurrent with any other sentence defendant was then serving. On defendant's direct appeal, we affirmed the sentence and conviction. State v. Joseph Tetelman, A-4933-99T4, (App. Div. March 14, 2002). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Tetelman, 174 N.J. 40 (2002).

On August 23, 2002, just over two months after the Supreme Court denied certification, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition arguing that:

(1) he was denied a speedy trial;

(2) he was denied a fair trial because the jury was aware that he was incarcerated and serving a State prison sentence based on seeing State correction officers in the courtroom;

(3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel: (i) because his attorney failed to raise these two arguments, and (ii) by defense counsel conceding that defendant had stolen the vehicle that formed the basis of the theft charge on which he was convicted;

(4) the trial court gave erroneous instructions to the jury concerning oral statements used as evidence against him;

(5) sidebar conferences were conducted outside of his presence; and

(6) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel by appellate counsel not raising the above issues on direct appeal.

PCR counsel filed a supplemental brief raising the following additional arguments: (1) defendant's claims were not procedurally barred by R. 3:22 as they raise constitutional issues; and (2) petitioner has raised a prima facie claim that he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.