NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted April 22, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 06-02-0434.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Lee March Grayson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Graves and Ashrafi.
Defendant Carl Boyd appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
On direct appeal of defendant's conviction, we recounted the facts and procedural history of the case, State v. Boyd, A-4819-06 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2009) (slip op. at 1-4), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 504 (2009), and we need only summarize them here. Defendant was tried before a jury on an eight-count indictment charging drug offenses. The jury found him guilty on two counts: third-degree distribution of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3), and third-degree distribution of the same heroin within a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. Id. at 2. The record suggests that the jury credited the testimony of a narcotics officer who observed a street sale from defendant to a woman. The woman was then arrested in possession of a glassine envelope of heroin. The jury convicted defendant of counts seven and eight of the indictment based on the street sale. The jury acquitted defendant of six other counts that were based on discovery by the police of an additional stash of cocaine and heroin near the location of the street sale. Id. at 3-4. As a repeat drug offender, defendant was sentenced to a mandatory extended term, under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), of ten years imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility. Id . at 2, 6.
On direct appeal, defendant raised the following arguments:
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS VOID ON ITS FACE AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDICTMENT AND JURY VERDICT.
COUNT 8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE TRIAL FOR FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE ELEMENTS OF ...