On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 03-04-0199.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Simonelli and Hayden.
Defendant Wayne Chapland appeals from the February 1, 2010 Law Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The record reveals that, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a. At the trial the State presented evidence that defendant had followed the victim from a bar and attempted to take her purse. When she resisted, he pulled out a knife, pointed it at her, and demanded that she hand over her purse, saying "give it to me or I'll cut you." Defendant testified that he forcefully took her purse but did not have a knife, although he put his hand behind his back and gestured as if he had a weapon.
Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison 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. On July 20, 2005, this court reversed defendant's conviction based on an erroneous jury charge. State v. Chapland, No. A-5748-03 (App. Div. July 20, 2005). On July 13, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed our decision and reinstated the conviction and sentence. State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275 (2006).
On February 13, 2009, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR, raising the following contentions:
POINT I: THE ARREST WARRANT WAS ISSUED UPON FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND PERJURY.
POINT II: THE AFFIDAVIT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANT IS PERJURY AND FRAUD.
POINT III: THE INDICTMENT HANDED DOWN BY THE GRAND JURY WAS BASED UPON PERJURY, FRAUD, AND DECEPTION.
POINT IV: THE ARREST, INDICTMENT, AND CONVICTION IS VOID.
After PCR counsel was appointed, defendant raised the following points in his amended petition:
POINT I: PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTION[AL] RIGHTS TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART. I, PAR 10), AND BECAUSE HE WAS PREJUDICED THEREBY, THE COURT SHOULD GRANT HIS MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS PRESENTED AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE PROOF THAT HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE ...