STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ULRICK LAROSILIERE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0324-05T10324-05T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ULRICK LAROSILIERE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted: March 21, 2006 - Decided March 31, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, 91-05-2385.

Ulrick Larosiliere, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Raymond W. Hoffman, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a trial court order denying his motion requesting access to records that would support a fourth post-conviction relief application. Judge Giles's April 26, 2005 letter explained the disposition of the motion:

The records you seek are not in the court's possession. However, you can request those records directly from the various agencies charged with their safekeeping. "Every motion shall state . . . the grounds upon which it is made and the nature of the relief sought." [R.] 1:6-2(a). Since you have not properly requested the records, nor have you been improperly denied access to those records, there are no grounds on which to grant your motion, nor is there any relief that the court can offer you. Accordingly, your motion has been denied.

I have enclosed the addresses of the appropriate agencies for you to direct your requests.

According to defendant, the trial court has refused to entertain his motion for reconsideration.

Defendant contends that this disposition and the refusal of the trial judge to address the motion for reconsideration "amount[] to a denial of access to court in violation of due process[,]" were unreasonable, and constituted an abuse of discretion. After reviewing the record in the light of the positions advanced by the parties, we regard the arguments made to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

We agree with Judge Giles that, until defendant properly requests the records he seeks from those who have them and can establish an improper denial, i.e., that the records are available and are material to arguments defendant has a right to make, his motion is premature and without adequate basis to elicit court action.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0324-05T1

March 31, 2006