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. Glanton

May 20, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LATEEF GLANTON, A/K/A BILAL BISHOP, GLENN THOMAS, GLENN D. THOMAS, LATIF GLANTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 00-10-2952.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 23, 2010

Before Judges Parrillo and Lihotz.

Defendant Lateef Glanton is a State prison inmate serving an aggregate twenty-two-year sentence subject to a twelve year and nine month period of parole ineligibility, following an August 29, 2001 jury conviction for armed robbery, weapons offenses and eluding. Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. State v. Glanton, No. A-1931-01 (App. Div. May 2, 2003). Certification was denied shortly thereafter. State v. Glanton, 177 N.J. 572 (2003).

Defendant appeals from a May 9, 2007 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without benefit of an evidentiary hearing. Defendant's motion to file this appeal as within time was granted. On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED WHERE THE DEFENDANT ASSERTS A PRIMA FACIE CASE INVOLVING FACTS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE TRIAL RECORD.

POINT II

THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL ATTORNEY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE WHERE HIS TWO CONSULTATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PREPARE A DEFENSE GIVEN THE EXTENSIVE FACT PATTERN WHICH INVOLVED MULTIPLE CRIMINAL EPISODES OVER A SPAN OF SEVERAL HOURS.

POINT III

THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE UNDER NERA SHOULD BE VACATED WHERE THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST BAILEY DID NOT CONFORM TO THE PROOFS AT TRIAL.

Following our review in light of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

Defendant asserts trial counsel was ineffective, claiming he held only two limited consultations with defendant before trial. Defendant broadly states trial counsel failed to properly prepare for trial, did not share discovery materials with him, and neglected to engage a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether defendant suffered effects of a 1998 brain injury. The PCR judge, who was the trial judge, noted defendant raised no concerns at trial, which spanned eleven days, and offered no new evidence to show what counsel should have presented but did not. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove counsel's performance was deficient -- that is, it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness such that "'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment.'" State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984)). Additionally, a defendant must prove he suffered prejudice due to ...


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.