On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 00-07-1204.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 26, 2011
Before Judges Lihotz and St. John.
Defendant Guillermo Veloz, a convicted murderer, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) as untimely. See R. 3:22-12 (establishing a five-year general time limitation).
Defendant, who was sixteen at the time of the crimes, was tried before a jury as an adult. He is serving an aggregate term of thirty years, subject to thirty years parole ineligibility after his convictions for murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 (count one); felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(3) (count two); armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count three); second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 (count four); third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d (count five); and third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 (count six).
We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion, issued June 4, 2004 (No. A-4750-01).*fn1 The events that underlie defendant's convictions are set forth in our 2004 opinion, and the record demonstrates defendant's overwhelming guilt of the charges against him. The Supreme Court denied certification on October 14, 2004. State v. Veloz, 182 N.J. 141 (2004).
On July 18, 2005, defendant filed a motion seeking a sentence reduction, which was denied.*fn2
On October 16, 2008, defendant filed his PCR petition, which was denied as untimely. Defendant filed an appeal from the denial of his PCR. He presents the following issues for our consideration:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
B. THE TIME BAR OF R. 3:22-4 CONCERNING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE CERTAIN ISSUES PREVIOUSLY RAISED DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT'S CASE.
C. THE FIVE YEAR TIME BAR SHOULD BE RELAXED DUE TO DEFENDANT'S EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND/OR ...