STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. QUARAN MCCLARY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5427-03T45427-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

QUARAN MCCLARY,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 18, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Lisa

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No.

0592-04-98.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Philip Lago, Designated Counsel,

of counsel and on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent (Johanna Barba Jones, Deputy Attorney

General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the April 12, 2004, order denying his petition for post-conviction relief.

In 1999, a jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a, and eleven other related offenses. Judge Callahan sentenced him to an aggregate term of life plus twenty years with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing on the murder charge. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, and Judge Callahan resentenced defendant to a term of life in prison with thirty years to be served without parole on the murder conviction. In this petition for post-conviction relief, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS AND THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE THEREFORE GRANTED DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION

POINT II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

(A) TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSULT WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PLEA AGREEMENT

(B) TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE ALIBI WITNESSES AND ASSERT AN ALIBI DEFENSE

(C) TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY CHALLENGE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS

(D) CUMULATIVE ERRORS BY COUNSEL AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

POINT III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL

POINT IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS

POINT V

THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS ARE NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion,

R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Callahan in his thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion of April 12, 2004. Nonetheless, we add the following comments.

In our opinion affirming defendant's conviction, we noted that "[t]he State's proofs at trial were overwhelming." State v. McClary, No. A-4238-99T4 (App. Div. Oct. 29, 2000), (slip op. at 3). We also rejected on the merits defendant's claim, based on the trial record, that he had been denied the effective assistance of his right to counsel. Id. at 7-9. The points now raised by defendant were all carefully considered by Judge Callahan and in each instance, properly rejected as having no merit.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5427-03T4

November 1, 2005