STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARNELL VERDELL

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3982-03T43982-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARNELL VERDELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted November 2, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Conley and Winkelstein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, 94-12-2953-I.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Vincent N. Simone, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Vincent P. Sarubbi, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy P. Scharff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Darnell Verdell, after being charged as a juvenile but waived to be tried as an adult, pleaded guilty on December 6, 1994, to one count of first-degree aggravated manslaughter/complicity, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a; N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6. The judge imposed a thirty-year term, with thirteen years of parole ineligibility. On March 27, 1995, defendant moved, pro se, for reconsideration of his sentence, but he failed to file a copy of that motion with the court. It was not until March 20, 1998, that he filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence with the court. The judge denied the motion on April 8, 1998. Defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the court.

On August 28, 2003, defendant moved for post-conviction relief. The court conducted hearings on December 5, 2003, and January 23, 2004. On the latter date, the judge denied defendant's application. It is from that determination that defendant appeals. He raises the following legal arguments:

POINT I

COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.

(A) STANDARDS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

(B) COUNSEL FAILED TO VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE WAIVER TO ADULT COURT OR TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL DEFENSES.

(C) COUNSEL COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUALLY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL, WHEN SEEN CUMULATIVELY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

POINT II

THE GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT STATE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a AND 2C:2-6.

We have carefully reviewed the record in light of defendant's contentions and the applicable law. We are satisfied that his arguments are without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only the following.

Defendant was provided a hearing on his post-conviction relief application. He did not demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient so that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 698 (1984)). Nor did he demonstrate that his guilty plea either lacked a factual basis or was other than knowingly and voluntarily entered. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Millenky in his January 23, 2004 oral decision.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3982-03T4

November 14, 2005