March 23, 2010
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
DEBRA HERRING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment Nos. 04-04-0330 and 04-06-1043.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 9, 2010
Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.
Defendant Debra Herring appeals from the February 15, 2008 order that denied her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).
A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. On January 26, 2005, the trial court sentenced defendant to a seven-year term of imprisonment, subject to an 85% period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On direct appeal, we affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing. State v. Herring, No. A-3772-04 (App. Div. November 20, 2006) (slip op. at 22). On May 14, 2007, the trial court re-sentenced defendant to the same sentence originally imposed. Defendant appealed, contending that her sentence was excessive. We affirmed the sentence in an appeal heard on an excessive-sentence calendar. State v. Herring, No. A-0101-07 (November 14, 2008).
On June 8, 2007, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR, arguing that she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by her attorney failing to: adequately communicate with her pre-trial; arrange for her to undergo a psychological evaluation; and argue specific mitigating factors at time of sentencing. Defendant also contended that her sentence was manifestly excessive. On February 11, 2008, Judge Vazquez entered an order supported by an oral decision, denying defendant's petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, defendant argues:
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS REQUIRED FOR DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH THAT SHE RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE VACATED.
We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. We are satisfied that neither argument is of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.