On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 03-10-3944.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 14, 2011 -
Before Judges Lihotz and Waugh.
Defendant Rochine Holmes appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
Following a two-day jury trial, defendant was convicted of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (count one), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a; third-degree possession with intent to distribute CDS (count two); N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3); and second-degree possession with intent to distribute CDS within 500 feet of a public housing facility (count three), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1a. After merger, the trial court granted the State's application to impose an extended term sentence. On September 7, 2004, the trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of fifteen years in prison, subject to a seven-year period of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction, but remanded for resentencing following the Supreme Court's abolition of presumptive term sentences, set forth in State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005) and State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006). Certification was denied. State v. Holmes, 190 N.J. 255 (2007).
On remand, the trial judge imposed the original sentence. Defendant did not appeal.
Defendant filed a PCR petition asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file pre-trial motions seeking suppression of evidence and challenging the State's identifications. Additionally, defendant maintained he was ill-advised by trial counsel during plea negotiations and his sentence was impermissible. A different judge reviewed each of these claims and, after determining there was no need for an evidentiary hearing, denied defendant's PCR petition.
Defendant now appeals, arguing:
THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S APPELLATE COUNSEL TO CHALLENGE ON THE DEFENDANT'S DIRECT APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE THE SURVEILLANCE SITE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE FULL RANGE OF SENTENCES WHEN RE-SENTENCING ...