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. Jorge Gallinat

June 28, 2011

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JORGE GALLINAT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 06-06-0763.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted June 8, 2011

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Fasciale.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). The police located, pursuant to a search warrant, over five ounces of cocaine in defendant's truck. The crux of defendant's argument is that his plea counsel failed to discuss with him the pre-trial discovery and file a motion to suppress.*fn1 We conclude that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of plea counsel and affirm.

Defendant pled guilty to first-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and b(1). Thereafter, he retained new counsel who filed a motion to set aside the plea. The judge painstakingly reviewed defendant's plea, denied the motion, and sentenced defendant to the negotiated term of eight years in prison with thirty-three months of parole ineligibility. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. State v. Gallinat, No. A-4673-06 (App. Div. August 7, 2008).

Defendant then filed his petition for PCR. The PCR judge stated that the petition was procedurally barred and concluded, "[t]hese are the same issues in a different suit of clothing." The judge also determined, substantively, that defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of PCR counsel. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points:

POINT I

THE COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL BAR OF R. 3:22-5 IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION

RAISED SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WERE NOT ENCOMPASSED ON DIRECT APPEAL.

POINT II

SINCE THE DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY [HIS PLEA] ATTORNEY D.M., THE COURT MISAPPLIED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT ...


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.