On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 90-11-3215.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Lihotz and Waugh.
Defendant Glenn Williams appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record on appeal.
In November 1990, Williams was indicted for third-degree possession of cocaine, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one); second-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2) (count two); and third-degree possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a) (count three). In July 1991, he entered a plea of guilty to count two, with the understanding that the State would recommend a four-year term of incarceration. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain in January 1992, and the remaining charges were dismissed.
Williams filed his PCR petition more than eight years later, in September 2010. He alleged that, on September 15, 1990, he had been stopped without cause by a member of the New Jersey State Police while driving on the Turnpike on his way into New York City, allowed to proceed without being issued a summons for any offense, and then stopped by the Port Authority Police as he exited the Lincoln tunnel on his return to New Jersey. Williams contends that the Port Authority police officer who stopped him was acting at the request of the State Police. Based upon the involvement of the State Police, Williams argued that there was a presumption of racial profiling. He relied on the Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling*fn1 and a consent order concerning racial profiling entered on September 30, 2000.
The attorney appointed to represent Williams requested discovery, but the State refused. On March 31, 2011, the PCR judge denied discovery and dismissed the petition as time barred. She also determined that Williams had failed to establish a colorable claim of racial profiling. This appeal followed.
Williams raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A "COLORABLE BASIS" FOR A CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT, THE COURT ERRED IN SUBSTANTIVELY DENYING THE PCR [PETITION] WITHOUT FIRST ORDERING THE STATE TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY.
POINT II: THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PCR [PETITION] WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE ...