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. Alexander

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


March 1, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
COLEEN ALEXANDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, Indictment No. 91-05-0273-I.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 27, 2009

Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes.

Defendant Coleen Alexander appeals from the order of the Law Division Criminal Part denying her post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. This is defendant's fifth PCR petition. The court denied her other four previous petitions finding no grounds for relief. The facts leading to defendant's conviction are stated in detail in her co-defendant's case, State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (1994). The procedural history preceding this appeal is reflected in our unpublished opinion denying defendant's third PCR petition. State v. Alexander, No. A-2528- 02 (App. Div. Apr. 12, 2004).

In this fifth PCR petition, defendant raises the following arguments.

POINT ONE

CHANGE IN THE CRIMINAL CODE N.J.S.A. AS OF 12/17/07 IS IN DIRECT RELATION TO THE DEFENDANT'S ONLY REASON FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PLEA OFFER AND RESULTING CRIMINAL CONVICTION SINCE THE DEFENDANT AUTOMATICALLY FACED THE DEATH PENALTY AT ANY/ALL JUNCTURES OF ANY RELIEF GRANTED.

POINT TWO

FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF THE DISADVANTAGES OF ACCEPTING A PLEA AND/OR THE ADVANTAGES OF TESTIFYING AT TRIAL AS RELATED TO THE EMINENT ISSUE OF DEATH PENALTY APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT CRIMINAL MATTER.

POINT THREE

CASE DECISION AS STATED IN STATE V. INGRAM, [APPELLATE DIVISION (PER CURIAM) 27 PAGES 14-2-8126 DECIDED 08/01/07] ON THE INSTRUCTION OF ISSUES OF ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY NOT ADHEREING (SIC) TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF BIELKIEWICZ, AND THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSING THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Pursel in his memorandum of opinion attached to the order dated June 3, 2008, denying this PCR petition.

Affirmed.

20100301

© 1992-2010 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.