On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 03-04-00541.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 7, 2011
Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.
Defendant C.S. appeals from the order of the Criminal Part denying his post conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.
On the last day of a five-day trial that ended on January 22, 2004, a jury convicted defendant of one count of first degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a; two counts of second degree attempted aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, as lesser included offenses of first degree aggravated sexual assault; and one count of third degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4.
The court sentenced defendant on June 18, 2004, to an aggregate term of twenty-two years imprisonment, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal, but remanded for the court to reconsider the sentence in light of the New Jersey Supreme Court's then recent opinion in State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 496 (2005), and vacated the NERA parole disqualifier as to two of the counts that had occurred on "unspecified dates." State v. C.S., No. A-7129-03 (App. Div. October 27, 2006) (slip op. at 13). The trial court re- sentenced defendant on December 1, 2006, resulting in an aggregate custodial term of twenty-two years with over ten years of parole ineligibility.*fn2 The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. C.S., 189 N.J. 429 (2007).
Defendant filed this pro se PCR petition on March 20, 2007.
Defendant argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because the attorney assigned to represent him at trial by the Public Defender's Office assumed defendant was guilty merely because defendant is African American. He also accused this attorney of breaching his ethical duties to keep him informed of the evidence against him.
Defendant further argued that the trial court erred by: 1) not permitting the jury access to the complete medical records of the physician who examined the victim; 2) admitting testimony concerning the laboratory analysis conducted by the State Police of bodily fluids found on the victim; and 3) by permitting the jury to see videotaped interviews of the child victim by law enforcement investigators.
After this pro se petition and brief were filed, defendant was assigned counsel to represent him in prosecuting the PCR petition. PCR counsel submitted additional memoranda in support of defendant's petition, and presented a certification signed by defendant detailing the alleged errors committed by his trial counsel. The PCR petition came for adjudication before the trial court on March 16, 2010. After considering the arguments of ...