On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 88-02-00450-I.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Rodríguez and Chambers.
Defendant James Armwood appeals from the order of January 26, 2009, denying his second petition for post- conviction relief. We affirm.
On March 23, 1989, defendant was convicted by a jury of murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a); possession of a weapon with the purpose of using it unlawfully, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and possession of a weapon without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b).
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with thirty years of parole ineligibility. On direct appeal, we affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the base term of thirty years. State v. Armwood, No. A-4814-88 (App. Div. May 3, 1990) (slip op. at 9). We also declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, stating that these matters may be raised in a post-conviction relief application. Ibid.
Defendant thereafter filed a post-conviction relief petition, contending that defense counsel had been ineffective by failing to investigate the case, by inadequately preparing for trial, and by advising defendant not to testify. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition, and we affirmed. State v. Armwood, No. A-2784-94 (App. Div. July 3, 1996).
On May 12, 2008, defendant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief pro se, although counsel thereafter represented him. In a twelve page written decision dated January 26, 2009, the trial court denied this second petition on the merits and on the procedural ground that the petition was untimely.
On appeal, defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek to suppress the photograph that the police obtained from defendant's friend and allegedly used in the photo array in which two witnesses identified defendant, and in his brief, defendant raises the following issues:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING NO EXCUSABLE NEGLECT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
A. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HAS SHOWN EXCUSABLE NEGLECT
B. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMAND THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S SECOND PCR BE ...