NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 16, 2013
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 94-08-2121.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick D. Isbill, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Nugent.
Defendant Malik A. Bennett appeals from the April 27, 2007 Law Division order that denied his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In this appeal, he presents the following arguments:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT THE TRIAL LEVEL.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
B. SINCE THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED INTO KNOWINGLY WITH A COMPLETE AWARENESS OF ITS PENAL CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF MISINFORMATION PROVIDED TO HIM BY TRIAL COUNSEL, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS CONTENTION.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, IN PART, UPON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS PURSUANT TO RULE 3:22-12.
THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED PURSUANT TO EITHER RULE 3:22-3 OR RULE 3:22-4.
Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and controlling law, we conclude the PCR court did not err when it determined that defendant's ...