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 of New Jersey v. Carl Worthington

December 28, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CARL WORTHINGTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 99-11-1763.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted November 15, 2010

Before Judges Kestin and Newman.

Defendant, Carl Worthington, appeals from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The application raised questions of effective assistance of counsel bearing upon custodial credits to which defendant claimed he was entitled.

The trial court concluded that defendant had made no prima facie showing of ineffectiveness and that an evidentiary hearing was not required in that connection. The court also concluded that the custodial credit issue was without merit, i.e., that defendant had received, or would receive before his release, all of the credits to which he was entitled. The order denying post-conviction relief was entered on February 19, 2009.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments for our consideration:

POINT I

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

POINT II

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT MISAPPLIED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND NOT AWARDING DEFENDANT DISCRETIONARY JAIL CREDITS.

POINT III

DEFENDANT HAS SUBMITTED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE REQUIRING THAT HE BE GRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

We focus on the procedural background of the matter. Fulfilling the terms of a plea agreement dated July 19, 2004, defendant, on that date, pled guilty to first-degree robbery charged in Hudson County indictment 99-11-1763. The plea agreement called for the crime to be treated as one of the second degree for the purposes of sentencing, with a dismissal of five related charges. The sentence imposed on September 24, 2004 reflected the plea agreement: defendant was to serve eight years in prison, eighty-five percent without parole, and on release was subject to five years of parole supervision. The prison term was "to be served concurrently with sentence in Bergen County and Federal Sentence." The judgment of conviction ...


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.