May 21, 2012
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
JAMES DALSKOV, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 04-08-1660.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 7, 2012
Before Judges Alvarez and Skillman.
A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree burglary, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2; second-degree attempted robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second- degree attempted kidnapping, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1b; second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; and second-degree conspiracy to commit kidnapping, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment, subject to the 85% period of parole ineligibility mandated by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, for the burglary, attempted robbery and attempted kidnapping. The court merged defendant's other convictions.
On appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence in an unreported opinion. State v. Dalskov, No. A-399-06 (Jan. 24, 2008), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, 195 N.J. 419 (2008).
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief based primarily on claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. After hearing argument by counsel, Judge Carroll denied defendant's petition by a written opinion and memorializing order entered on November 16, 2009. On appeal from the denial of his petition, defendant presents the following arguments:
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF TRIAL/ APPELLATE COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS.
A. Trial/Appellate Counsel Failed to Raise the Issue of Jurors' Misconduct.
B. Trial/Appellate Counsel Failed to Raise the Issue of Threatening Phone Calls Which Effectively Denied Defendant the Right to Present a Defense.
We reject these arguments substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Carroll's written opinion. No further discussion of these arguments is warranted. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.