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.

Candelaria v. Hastings

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 12, 2014

LUIS CANDELARIA, Petitioner,
v.
BEVERLEY HASTINGS, Respondent.

OPINION

PETER G. SHERIDAN, District Judge.

Petitioner Luis Candelaria ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at East Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated below, the petition will be dismissed as second or successive.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, on February 28, 1996, and amended on September 24, 1998, after a jury found him guilty of 20 counts of armed robbery and burglary. (Pet. ¶ 1(a).) The trial court granted the State's motion for an extended term and sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 105 years, with a 60-year period of parole ineligibility. State v. Candelaria , 710 A.2d 545 ( N.J.Super. Ct. A.D. 1998). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, but directed the trial court to modify the aggregate sentence to that of life imprisonment pIus 40 years, with a 39-year period of parole ineligibility. Id . The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied certification. State v. Candelaria , 715 A.2d 990 (N.J. 1998).

Petitioner's first petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") was denied by the Law Division on August 27, 2001. State v. Candelario , A-1200-01T4 ( N.J.Super. Ct. A.D. Mar. 6, 2003). Petitioner appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of relief Id . On June 20, 2003, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied certification. State i'. Candelaria, 827 A.2d 290 (N.J. 2003).

On June 4, 2004, Petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the Court subsequently dismissed as untimely. Candelario v. Hendricks , Civil Action No. 04-2969 (SRC). Thereafter, on July 23, 2010, Petitioner filed his second PCR petition, which was denied on August 3, 2010 as procedurally barred. State v. Candelaria , 2011 WL 5572840 ( N.J.Super. Ct. A.D. Nov. 17, 2011). Petitioner appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial. Id . The Supreme Court of New Jersey then denied certification. State v. C'ande/aria , 42 A.3d 889 (N.J. 2012).

On June 12, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to this Court's Mason notice, see Mason v. Meyers , 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), Petitioner withdrew his initial petition and submitted an "all-inclusive" petition. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief in his amended petition:

POINT ONE: THE PETITIONER SHALL PRESENT THE ARGUMENT ON THE PROCEDURAL BAR THAT WAS PRESENTED AND DENIED BY THE LOWER COURT ON POSTCONVICTION RELIEF, WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF THE PRESENT APPEAL
POINT TWO: TN THE CASE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE FEDERAL COURT IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT, LUIS CANDELARIA, WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE TN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL AND PERMISSIBLE SENTENCE, WHICH IS GUARANTEED BY THE NEW JERSEY AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS, INCORPORATING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND VIOLATION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, TN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS REQUIRING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BASED ON FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE REDUCTION OF THE SENTENCE TO A TERM OF TIME-SERVED WHEREBY DEFENDANT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM HIS ILLEGAL CONFINEMENT
POINT THREE: THE PETITIONER, LUIS CANDELARIA, WAS SUBJECTED TO PHYSICAL ABUSE AND COERCION WHEN HE UNWILLINGLY GAVE A STATEMENT/CONFESSION TO CRIMES HE DID NOT COMMIT. HIS STATEMENT/CONFESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AND EXCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOCTRINES OF MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
POINT FOUR: DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND REVIEW DISCOVERY; TO CALL WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE; TO OBJECT TO THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE AND TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER WHICH DENIED DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, REQUIRING THE REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND AN AN ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT FROM THE CONFINES OF THE EAST STATE PRISON AS PROMULGATED ON THE 5th, 6th and 14th AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW JERSEY AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW

(Pet'r's Mern. Supp. Pet., Table of Contents.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal ...


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.