On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 95-07-0889.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing and LeWinn.
Defendant Jamie Farthing appeals from two orders of the trial court. In Docket No. A-3198-07, defendant appeals from the January 10, 2008 order denying her motion for a new trial. In Docket No. A-3481-07, defendant appeals from the February 25, 2008 order denying her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). For the reasons that follow, we affirm both orders.
Tried to a jury in 1996, defendant was convicted of murder, kidnapping, felony murder and related offenses. Her original sentence was a term of life plus sixty years with a forty-year period of parole ineligibility. In a prior appeal, we set aside her murder conviction and affirmed on all other issues. State v. Farthing, 331 N.J. Super. 58, 85-86 (App. Div. 2000). Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 165 N.J. 530 (2000).
The State determined not to retry defendant on the murder charge, and she was thereupon resentenced to a term of life with a forty-year parole ineligibility period. She appealed this sentence, and we affirmed by order entered on May 9, 2002; the Supreme Court thereafter denied her petition for certification. 174 N.J. 365 (2002).
On November 13, 2002, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, which assigned counsel supplemented with an amended petition and brief on December 22, 2004, and a supplemental PCR petition on February 4, 2005. Defendant raised the following claims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; Miranda violations*fn1; the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; denial of her right to an impartial jury; and "substantial denial" of her rights under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.
On August 8, 2005, the trial judge entered an order denying defendant's PCR petition. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed in an unreported decision. State v. Farthing, No. A-0104-05 (App. Div. February 14, 2007); the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 190 N.J. 394 (2007).
On January 3, 2008, defendant filed a second PCR petition and a motion for a new trial. By order entered January 10, 2008, the trial judge denied defendant's new trial motion on the grounds that it was not timely filed pursuant to Rule 3:20-2. On February 25, 2008, the trial judge issued an order denying defendant's second PCR petition.
We turn first to defendant's appeal from the denial of her motion for a new trial, in which she argues:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR [A] NEW TRIAL AND SHOULD GRAN[T] DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR [A] NEW TRIAL, OR AT [A] MINIMUM, CONDUCT A HEARING WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING [THE] STATE'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNFAIRLY CONVICTED IN VIOLATION OF HER FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DUE PROCESS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL
The jury rendered its verdict on November 26, 1996. Defendant filed her motion for a new trial more than eleven ...