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. Akram Evans

August 1, 2011

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
AKRAM EVANS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 04-11-3481.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 26, 2011

Before Judges Sabatino and C.L. Miniman.

Defendant Akram Evans appeals from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief ("PCR") in connection with his conviction in 2005 following a guilty plea to first-degree vehicular homicide while driving with a suspended license, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5, and second-degree assault by a motor vehicle while intoxicated near a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1c(3)(a).

The offenses arose out of a fatal accident in June 2003, in which defendant, who had been drinking, ran a red light and crashed his car into a patrol car, killing one of the police officers inside. During the course of his plea colloquy, defendant testified that he "probably" had consumed four gallons of gin before the accident. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years on the first-degree offense, subject to the No Early Release Act ("NERA"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2a, and a concurrent seven-year term on the second-degree offense.

We affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction on direct appeal. State v. Evans, No. A-3281-05 (Jul. 9, 2007). Subsequently, defendant filed a petition for PCR in September 2008.

After hearing oral argument, Judge Thomas Vena, the same judge who had presided over defendant's plea and sentencing, dismissed the PCR petition. The judge issued a written decision on July 2, 2009. Preliminarily, the judge found that the petition was barred under Rule 3:22-4 because the issues presented could have been raised on direct appeal. The judge then went on to address the merits, concluding that defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the indictment. Judge Vena also found that trial counsel was not ineffective in eliciting a factual basis for the plea.

This appeal followed. Defendant raises these points for our consideration in his initial brief:

POINT ONE

THE POST[-]CONVICTION RELIEF COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT'S GROUNDS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WERE BARRED UNDER RULE 3:22-4 WAS IN ERROR.

POINT TWO

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS DENIED THE ...


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.