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 v. Williams

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

October 30, 2013

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEVIN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 8, 2013

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 03-05-652.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Brian D. Driscoll, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief.

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Before Judges Espinosa and Koblitz.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Kevin Williams participated in the brutal beating and robbery of a garbage truck driver. He appeals from the June 29, 2011 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1). After the victim testified, he remained seated in the courtroom and subsequently identified defendant by his voice after defendant spoke in open court. Although remanding for resentencing, we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in a published opinion. State v. Williams, 404 N.J.Super. 147 (App. Div. 2008) certif. denied, 201 N.J. 440 (2010). Upon remand, the convictions were merged and defendant was sentenced to an extended term of thirty years, subject to an eighty-five-percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Assigned defense counsel raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT I: THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ALL OF THE ERRORS CLAIMED RELATING TO THE VOICE IDENTIFICATION WERE HARMLESS BECAUSE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL OTHER EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE VICTIM'S ASSAILANT. (NOT RAISED BELOW)
POINT II: TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE VICTIM REMAINING IN THE ...

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.