On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 03-08-2828.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 15, 2011 - Decided
Before Judges Parrillo and Skillman.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of first-degree robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; unlawful possession of a handgun, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); resisting arrest, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a); and other offenses that were merged into the robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to a twenty-year term of imprisonment for the robbery, subject to a seventeen-year period of parole ineligibility mandated by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, for the robbery, and concurrent terms of five years, with two and one-half years of parole ineligibility, for unlawful possession of a handgun, and eighteen months, with nine months of parole ineligibility, for resisting arrest.
On defendant's direct appeal, we affirmed his convictions in an unreported opinion but remanded for resentencing in light of State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005), and State v. Abdullah, 184 N.J. 497 (2005). State v. Tyson, A-0471-04 (Dec. 12, 2005). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 186 N.J. 604 (2006).
At the resentencing we had ordered, the trial court reimposed the same sentence originally imposed.
Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After full briefing and oral argument, Judge Furnari issued a written opinion on August 3, 2009 denying defendant's petition, which was memorialized by an order entered that same day.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL.
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS OF ALL HIS CLAIMS IN SUPPORT OF HIS PETITION.
We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Furnari's written opinion. Defendant's arguments do not ...