January 28, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
AKBAR NAIM, A/K/A RONALD MOORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 88-02-0124.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 11, 2011
Before Judges Graves and Waugh.
Defendant Akbar Naim appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
In 1988, Naim was found guilty of murder, and two related offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a thirty- year period of parole ineligibility for the murder. A shorter concurrent sentence was imposed on one related offense, the other having been merged. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in 1990, and the Supreme Court denied certification.
Naim has filed three prior PCR petitions, each of which was dismissed. We affirmed each dismissal, and the Supreme Court denied certification each time it was sought.
The present appeal involves Naim's fourth PCR application.
It was initially filed in April 2007, and supplemented in August 2007 and again in April 2008. Judge William L'E. Wertheimer dismissed the present PCR application, as supplemented, on August 28, 2009. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Naim raises the following issues:
POINT I: DEFENDANT SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE STATE'S KNOWING USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AND THE CONCEALMENT, SUPPRESSION AND WITHHOLDING BY THE STATE OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AT THEIR COMMAND THAT WOULD HAVE REFUTED THE TESTIMONY THUS GIVEN AGAINST HIM IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND AND HIS FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.
POINT II: DEFENDANT SHOULD BE GRANTED PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY BECAUSE HE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE STATE AND PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE DENYING HIM THE RIGHT TO THIS DISCOVERY THOUGH STATE NEED NOT EQUALIZE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS TO ENABLE INDIGENT PERSON TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF RIGHT OF DISCOVERY EVIDENCE, IT CAN NOT BY FORCE OF ITS EXACTIONS DRAW A LINE WHICH PRECLUDES A PERSON FROM SECURING SUCH EVIDENCE MERELY BY DISABLING THEM FROM BRINGING THE BEST EVIDENCE TO TRIBUNAL IN ORDER TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE ABUSE AND WASTE, AND TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM ANY FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS UPON REVIEW. U.S.C.A. CONST. AMEND. 14.
POINT III: DEFENDANT ILLEGALLY [sic] MURDER CONVICTION SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS ILLEGALLY EXCESSIVE AND CONTAINED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE GREATER THAN THAT REQUIRED BY LAW WITHOUT PROPERLY WEIGHING THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3b and N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a and b.
Having reviewed the issues raised on appeal in light of the record and the applicable law, we find them to be without merit and not warranting discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11- 3(e)(2). Consequently, we affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wertheimer's letter opinion of August 28, 2009.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.