On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Accusation No. 05-04-0369.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 6, 2011 -
Before Judges Messano and Yannotti.
On May 4, 2005, defendant Anthony McKnight pled guilty to Mercer County Accusation No. 05-04-0369A, charging him with first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4; and count one of Mercer County Indictment No. 04-09-0655-I, charging him with second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. In accordance with the plea bargain, on July 7, 2005, defendant was sentenced on the aggravated manslaughter conviction to a term of twenty-years imprisonment, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and a five-year concurrent sentence with an 85% period of parole ineligibility on the robbery conviction. No direct appeal was filed.
Defendant filed a PCR petition on February 17, 2009. He alleged that "serious concerns" arose during the "pre-indictment proceedings," in particular, that he "was under the mistaken impression that the State's recommended sentence was 17 years with the 85% mandatory NERA stipulation"; and, that "trial counsel failed to explain the consequences of proceeding with the Grand Jury Presentment, in the event [defendant] wished to proceed to trial." Defendant alleged that trial counsel told him he would face the "maximum penalty" if "an indictment was returned."
Defendant further claimed that trial counsel failed to investigate the case and "there were two . . . other individuals present at the commission of the offense, but neither was charged with offenses relating to Aggravated Manslaughter." Defendant argued that if a thorough investigation had been conducted, his sentence would have been reduced "as the State would have had [a] stronger case against the co-defendants, with [his] cooperation." Lastly, defendant claimed trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a direct appeal.
At oral argument on defendant's PCR petition, now-retired Judge Edward M. Neafsey noted that defendant had already been indicted for murder at the time of his guilty plea, and that the indictment was dismissed as part of the plea bargain in return for defendant's guilty plea to aggravated manslaughter.*fn1 Judge Neafsey then considered each of defendant's claims on their merits and denied the requested relief.
Defendant now raises the following points on appeal:
THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROCEDURALLY BARRED POINT II DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
A. COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY INFORM DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS OF APPEAL WHICH IN TURN CAUSED DEFENDANT TO FAIL TO FILE A DIRECT APPEAL
B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE AMOUNT OF PAROLE INELIGIBILITY REQUIRED
C. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE POINT III THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR GRANT HIS APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF POINT IV THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards. The contentions lack sufficient merit to warrant ...