STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMIL HILTON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6965-03T46965-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMIL HILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

 

Submitted November 1, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 98-05-2237, 98-05-2235.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Maura K. Tully, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Jamil Hilton, appeals from a trial court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant was arrested and indicted in connection with two separate offenses of armed carjacking. Following the second carjacking defendant fled from police in a high speed chase during which he attempted to run over several police officers and injured five officers. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to two counts of first degree carjacking, five counts of second degree aggravated assault, fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and second degree eluding. In return, the State dismissed numerous counts of the indictments including attempted murder. During the plea hearing, the defendant specifically advised Judge Weissbard that he had had sufficient time to discuss the plea with his attorney and he had "enough time to talk about the whole case" with his attorney. In accordance with the plea agreement, at sentencing the State recommended thirty years imprisonment with fifteen years of parole ineligibility. But Judge Weissbard instead imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years with ten years of parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed and we affirmed the sentence finding that it was not excessive.

Defendant, acting pro se, then filed this PCR, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his assigned attorney only met with him four times while his case was pending and that this inadequate consultation resulted in his receiving an excessive sentence. Judge Nelson rejected his petition in a written opinion that accompanied a March 26, 2004 order denying the PCR.

On this appeal, defendant raises the following issue:

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION MUST BE REVERSED AND THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, BECAUSE A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS ESTABLISHED AS TO THE INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-COUNSEL CLAIM (Not Raised Below).

We conclude that defendant's contention is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Nelson's opinion.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-6965-03T4

November 15, 2005