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. Reyes

January 29, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LEONEL B. REYES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 02-12-3039.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 5, 2010

Before Judges Parrillo and Lihotz.

On remand for an evidentiary hearing on defendant Leonel Reyes' post-conviction relief (PCR) claim that trial counsel had interfered with his right to testify, the Law Division denied the PCR petition. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Briefly, by way of background, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. He was sentenced to a seven-year term, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirmed the judgment of conviction, State v. Reyes, No. A-0517-03T3 (App. Div. November 1, 2004), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, State v. Reyes, 183 N.J. 213 (2005).

We recount the facts of the underlying crime as stated in our opinion on defendant's appeal of the Law Division's denial of his PCR petition:

The charges against defendant arose out of an incident that occurred on Saturday, November 9, 2002, when Stellianos Lazaridis was returning home from his job as a supervisor of a nightclub in the Bronx. On weekends, when the club receipts were between $15,000 and $20,000, he drove from the Bronx to the club owner's home, left the receipts there and returned to his home in Cliffside Park. At about 5:30 a.m., on the Saturday in question, Lazaridis drove around the block near his home to make sure no one had followed him. He parked his car, and when he got out, a man wearing a black jacket and a baseball cap, later identified as co-defendant Frias Ozonia, suddenly appeared "from nowhere." When Lazaridis stopped and changed direction, so did Frias. When Lazaridis asked Frias what he wanted, Frias displayed a knife. Lazaridis saw the knife, ran, screamed "police" and called 9-1-1 on the cell phone he had in his hand.

At that point, defendant was running toward Lazaridis with his hand in his pocket. As Lazaridis was running away, he turned and saw Frias talking with another man, later identified as defendant.

In response to Lazaridis' 9-1-1 call, Cliffside Park Police Officer Pasquale Dorito arrived on the scene and found Lazaridis excited and nervous. After Lazaridis told Dorito what had happened and described the two men, Dorito drove around the area with Lazaridis but did not locate the suspects. Another Cliffside Park Police Officer, Michael Messenger, was on patrol that morning and heard the description of the two suspects over the police radio. When Messenger saw two men resembling the suspects walking on Palisade Avenue, he told them to stop. The men complied and Messenger asked them what they were doing in the area. One of the men told the officer that they had taken a cab to visit a girlfriend in Passaic but were dropped off in Cliffside Park. They did not explain why they were in the area at 5:30 a.m. or why the cab had dropped them off at that particular place.

When Messenger notified police headquarters that he had stopped the two men, another officer picked up Lazaridis and drove him to the scene where Lazaridis immediately identified defendant and Frias as the man with the knife.

[State v. Reyes, No. A-1979-06T5 (App. Div. February 19, 2008) (slip op. at 2-3) (Reyes II).]

In his PCR petition, defendant's principal claim was that trial counsel was ineffective because she did not allow defendant to testify on his own behalf. Defendant submitted a certification stating that his attorney gave him a form to fill out and, although he claimed he could not understand it because it was in English, signed his name indicating that he did not wish to testify. He claimed in his PCR petition that he was "confused about what line to sign and signed not only the lines reserved for my signature, but also on the line reserved for my attorney's signature as well." The trial judge asked him, however, whether he wanted to testify and he answered that he did not.

Defendant claimed in his PCR certification that he told his attorney from the beginning that he wanted to testify. At the initial PCR hearing, defendant testified that when the judge asked him if he wanted to testify at trial, he started to answer "yes," but his "attorney pinched my ear and told me that I did not have to testify because the prosecutor would ask me a lot of questions and try to confuse me." Defendant further stated that he "felt pressured by my attorney and felt that I did not have a choice so I told the judge that I would not testify." He stated that he was so unhappy with his trial counsel that he immediately fired her and retained ...


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.