STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TERRELL MURRAY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2866-03T42866-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TERRELL MURRAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

 

Submitted October 31, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges A.A. Rodr guez and C.S. Fisher.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, Indictment No. 94-08-2907.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Toni Ann Russo, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Barbara A. Rosenkrans, Special Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the letter brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; purposeful or knowing murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). Following a trial, defendant was convicted of all charges. He was sentenced to a fifty-year term of imprisonment with a thirty-five-year period of parole ineligibility on the purposeful murder conviction. The conspiracy and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose convictions merged with the murder conviction, and a concurrent four-year term of imprisonment was imposed on the unlawful possession of a weapon conviction. The judgment of conviction was entered on February 9, 1996.

On appeal, we rejected all defendant's contentions except that, with regard to the sentence and the terms of the judgment of conviction, we held, as the State conceded, that the maximum period of parole ineligibility for murder is thirty-years and modified the judgment accordingly. We also remanded for the entry of an amended judgment to address a minor discrepancy between the judgment of conviction and what the judge stated at the time of sentencing. State v. Murray, Docket No. A-5891-95T4 (App. Div., June 22, 1998). The trial judge entered an amended judgment, in conformity with our mandate, on June 23, 1998.

The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification on October 26, 1998. State v. Murray, 156 N.J. 427 (1998).

On June 26, 2002, defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The motion was denied by the trial judge on January 31, 2003.

On appeal, defendant asserts the following arguments:

I. DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT[,] 14TH AMENDMENT AND SIMILAR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.

II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HEAR DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION AS A MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF AND FAILING TO GRANT AN EVIDENTIAL HEARING AS THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AT LEAST A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

Having carefully reviewed these contentions and the record on appeal, we conclude that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2866-03T4

November 15, 2005