NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 8, 2010 Decided November 23, 2010 Motion to reinstate appeal granted.
Resubmitted May 22, 2013
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 91-11-1817.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Andrew C. Carey, Acting Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy A. Hulett, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Before Judges Grall and Simonelli.
Defendant Benjamin Levine appeals from the May 13, 2008 Law Division order, which denied his pro se motion for reconsideration of the July 13, 2007 order denying his pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) grounded on ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
Following a jury trial, defendant, a doctor, was convicted of nine counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact with female patients, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b. The trial judge sentenced him to concurrent three-year terms of probation on each conviction with concurrent 180-day terms of incarceration in the Middlesex County jail.
Defendant appealed his conviction. Among other arguments, defendant contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We granted defendant's motion for a temporary remand on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. After the remand hearing, we affirmed, finding "no adequate basis for concluding that defendant's [ineffective assistance of counsel] arguments have satisfied the second prong of the test . . . articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)[.]" State v. Levine, No. A-0463-96 (App. Div. Feb. 3, 2000) (slip op. at 6), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 137 (2000).
In March 2003, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, again challenging his conviction and raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In an oral opinion rendered on June 15, 2007, Judge Paley denied the petition. The judge found the petition was barred by Rule 3:22-4, because the issues raised in the petition should have been raised in the direct appeal, and Rule 3:22-5, because the issues were adjudicated in the prior appeal. Addressing the merits, the judge found that ...