On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment Nos. 03-05-0906 and 04-11-2696.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 1, 2011
Before Judges Espinosa and Skillman.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Pursuant to a plea agreement that disposed of two indictments, defendant pled guilty to second-degree possession of controlled dangerous substance (CDS), heroin, with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2); third-degree possession of CDS, heroin, within 1000 feet of school property with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; second-degree distribution of CDS, heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2); and second-degree conspiracy to distribute CDS, heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:35-5(a)(1). The court imposed an aggregate sentence of ten years with a fifty-four month parole ineligibility period on April 22, 2005.
Defendant filed a direct appeal, arguing only that his sentence was excessive. We affirmed the judgment of conviction by order filed October 17, 2006. The Supreme Court granted his petition for certification and summarily remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005). See State v. Niblack, 189 N.J. 644 (2007). On remand, the same sentence was imposed.
On January 18, 2008, defendant, having earlier filed a pro se PCR petition, filed an amended PCR petition with the assistance of counsel. The PCR court denied defendant's petition by order dated August 8, 2008. In this appeal, defendant presents the following issues for our consideration:
AT THE HEARING CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 8, 2008, ADDRESSING DEFENDANT'S POST-SENTENCING MOTIONS, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
AT THE HEARING CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 8, 2008, ADDRESSING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
THE COURT'S ACTION OF RE-SENTENCING DEFENDANT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S REMAND ORDER PURSUANT TO STATE V. NATALE DENIED DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, HIS RIGHT ...