Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

State v. Mary

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


November 12, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
EVANS MARY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 01-06-0756.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 27, 2009

Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes.

A jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3); and possession of cocaine within 500 feet of a public park with the intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to an eight-year term of imprisonment, with two years of parole ineligibility, for possession of cocaine within 500 feet of a public park with the intent to distribute. The court merged defendant's other convictions.

On appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence in an unreported opinion. State v. Mary, No. A-2610-02 (Jan. 23, 2004), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, State v. Mary, 180 N.J. 152 (2004). Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied for the reasons set forth in an oral opinion delivered on August 21, 2007.

On appeal from the denial of his petition, defendant presents the following argument:

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE ENABLED HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT HE WAS NOT AFFORDED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM AT TRIAL, BY THE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XIV; - N.J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10.

We reject this argument and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Barisonek's comprehensive oral opinion. Defendant's argument does not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11- 3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20091112

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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