Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of New Jersey v. Shawntay Gill

September 28, 2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SHAWNTAY GILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 98-01-0132.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 9, 2012

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

Defendant Shawntay Gill appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

On January 29, 1998, a grand jury in Middlesex County returned an indictment charging defendant with first-degree conspiracy to commit armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; two counts of first-degree armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and third-degree terroristic threats, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b). On May 25, 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of first-degree armed robbery pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend that defendant receive two eleven-year sentences, one for each count, to be served concurrently, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility, pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The agreement further provided that, if defendant failed to appear on the date of sentencing, the State was entitled to recommend that defendant receive the maximum sentence authorized by law. See State v. Subin, 222 N.J. Super. 227, 238-39 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 580 (1988).

On August 25, 2000, the original date scheduled for sentencing, defendant failed to appear. The sentencing hearing was adjourned and rescheduled for February 2, 2001. Again, defendant failed to appear. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant remained a fugitive until February 10, 2006, the date on which the bench warrant was executed. For four out of the five years that defendant was a fugitive, it appears that he was incarcerated in Pennsylvania. On March 31, 2006, the court finally sentenced defendant to two fifteen-year terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, subject to the parole restriction under NERA. On direct appeal, we reviewed and affirmed defendant's sentence in accordance with the summary process available under Rule 2:9-11. State v. Gill, No. A-1662-06 (App. Div. Sept. 18, 2007).

On June 10, 2008, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a memorandum of law discussing the legal basis for the relief requested. Specifically, defendant alleged that his trial attorney did not properly explain to him the consequences of failing to appear for sentencing. The court assigned counsel to represent defendant in prosecuting the petition. Defendant's PCR counsel filed a supplemental memorandum of law on June 20, 2009. The court considered the arguments presented by counsel and denied defendant's petition in an order dated October 30, 2009.

In an oral ruling delivered from the bench, the PCR judge rejected defendant's petition on three grounds. First, the judge found that this court's decision, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial court, precluded defendant from relitigating the validity of the sentence in a PCR petition. Second, the judge found that the trial counsel's alleged error did not compromise defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment. Third, the judge found that even if the trial counsel's performance was deficient in that it failed to inform defendant of the consequences of his failure to appear at sentencing, the plea hearing transcript showed that the judge addressed defendant directly on this issue and fully explained those consequences to him.

In this appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:

POINT I

SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT GREATER THAN WHAT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, RESULTING IN THE IMPOSITION OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.