On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 05-02-0155.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Alvarez and Coburn.
This is an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief (PCR).
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, defendant pled guilty to first degree aggravated sexual assault and second degree burglary with the understanding that his sentences would be concurrent to each other and to a prison term he was then serving, and would not exceed imprisonment for fifteen years with twelve years and nine months of parole ineligibility pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a). The judge imposed the sentence to which the parties had agreed, which also included five years of parole following release from prison, compliance with Megan's Law, and community supervision for life.
On direct appeal, we affirmed the sentence after consideration on a sentencing oral argument calendar, and the Supreme Court subsequently denied certification. Defendant then filed the subject petition for PCR. After his petition was denied by an order dated July 30, 2008, defendant appealed based on the following arguments:
POINT I: THE RELIANCE BY THE SENTENCING COURT ON INFORMATION GATHERED FROM POLICE REPORTS, INCLUDING THE VICTIM'S STATEMENT, WITHOUT DEFENDANT'S CONSENT, IN ADDITION TO THE STATE'S ARGUMENT THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN DISCOVERY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND STATE V. NATALE.
POINT II: THE PCR COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT DEFENDANT A NEW SENTENCE HEARING AS A RESULT OF TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDING DEFENDANT WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AT HIS SENTENCE HEARING AND APPELLATE COUNSEL PROVIDING DEFENDANT WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION.
POINT III: THE PCR COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Mitchel E. Ostrer in his well-reasoned and thorough oral opinion delivered on July 29, 2008.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...