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. Darnell Dixon

September 13, 2011

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DARNELL DIXON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 95-06-2287.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted December 8, 2010

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Fasciale.

Defendant, Darnell Dixon, appeals from the July 3, 2008 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

Following a trial in 1997, defendant was found guilty of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a(1), third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun; N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b; and second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. The court subsequently denied defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial. At sentencing, the court granted the State's motion to sentence defendant as a persistent offender and impose an extended term. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate thirty-year custodial term with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility.

In an unreported opinion, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State v. Dixon, No. A-5906-97 (App. Div. Nov. 8, 1999). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Dixon, 163 N.J. 396 (2000). In June 2000, defendant timely filed a pro se PCR petition. Defendant was assigned counsel, but in January 2002, defendant notified the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) that he was dissatisfied with his assigned counsel's representation and requested that new counsel be assigned. The following month, defendant corresponded with the court, requesting that his PCR petition be "set aside." The court treated the correspondence as an application to withdraw the petition and granted this relief without prejudice to defendant to re-file his petition. Thereafter, defendant continued to correspond with the OPD. Between 2002 and 2006, a number of attorneys from OPD were assigned to represent defendant in connection with the petition, but it does not appear that any formal proceedings occurred. Finally, in April 2006, a new petition was filed on defendant's behalf. The court issued a lengthy opinion denying relief, including an evidentiary hearing. The court found that defendant's petition was time-barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-12 and that "there has been no injustice sufficient to relax the five-year time bar of [Rule] 3:22-12." Nonetheless, the court addressed the merits of defendant's petition and also concluded that defendant failed to meet the standards for post-conviction relief.

Defendant's conviction stemmed from the 1995 shooting of the victim who, according to what defendant reportedly told Michael Swann, attempted to rob him. Another witness, Mark Willis, identified defendant as the victim's shooter. Defendant's girlfriend and mother of his three children, Janell Barnes, testified that defendant was at her house, located in the area where the shooting occurred, around the time the shooting allegedly occurred. She also testified that she heard gunshots and looked out the window, but was unable to see anything because it was foggy and "real misty." At that time, defendant was in the living room with the children. Barnes's stepfather, Robert Arrington, also at Barnes's home that evening, testified that he heard shots. He corroborated Barnes's testimony that defendant was in the living room with the children at the time he heard the shots. Finally, one other witness, Marcel Carter, testified that he had just completed a game of basketball when he heard shots and saw a figure running. He was unable to determine the gender of the person. Fearing that he might get caught in any cross-fire, he went to Barnes's home to get a ride from defendant. He arrived at Barnes's home ten minutes after the shooting, where he found defendant on the sofa with his children.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITION FOR POST[-]CONVICTION RELIEF TIME[-]BARRED.

POINT II

THE COURT DENIED DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT EVERY STAGE OF THE TRIAL AND FAILED TO SECURE AND ...


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.