June 21, 2010
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
JOHN DITZLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 05-01-00066-A.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted June 2, 2010
Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes.
Defendant was charged with sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4), and endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). Pursuant to a plea bargain under which the State agreed to dismiss the sexual assault charge and to recommend that defendant be sentenced to probation, conditioned upon his serving 364 days in the Burlington County Jail, defendant pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. Before the scheduled sentencing date, defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After hearing argument by counsel, the trial court denied the motion. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a probationary term, conditioned on defendant serving 364 days in the Burlington County Jail.
On defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we affirmed in an unreported opinion. State v. Ditzler, No. A-0210-05T5 (Dec. 12, 2006). We also denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief or, in the alternative, a motion for a modification of the terms of his supervision under Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's petition for post-conviction relief at which defendant's original counsel, who negotiated the plea agreement on his behalf, gave extensive testimony.
By a written decision filed on February 2, 2009, Judge Smith denied both defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and his motion for modification of the terms and conditions of his supervision under Megan's Law.
On appeal from the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief, defendant presents the following arguments:
THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED THE PCR MOTION, AND ITS DECISION MUST BE REVERSED.
1. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL STANDARD.
a. Post-Conviction Relief.
b. Effective Assistance of Counsel.
2. THE FOREGOING STANDARDS AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE.
a. Post-Conviction Relief.
b. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
The appeal does not challenge the denial of defendant's motion for modification of the terms and conditions of his supervision under Megan's Law, which the trial court said defendant should pursue through "tiering proceedings."
We reject the arguments defendant presents on this appeal substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Smith's February 2, 2009 written decision. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.