STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES WILLIAMS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2681-04T42681-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMES WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted: March 7, 2006 - Decided March 15, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, 81-1702.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Philip Lago, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Maryann K. Lynch, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

In 1982, defendant was convicted of felony murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(3)), second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1)), and first-degree robbery (N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1). Subsequently, sentence was imposed and, thereafter, reconsidered. Ultimately, the trial court merged the homicide and robbery convictions and sentenced defendant, as to those crimes, to a thirty-year prison term with fifteen years of parole ineligibility. For the aggravated assault, the court imposed a consecutive prison term of seven years with three-and-one-half years of parole ineligibility.

In an unpublished opinion filed on February 28, 1986 under docket no. A-7-82, we affirmed the convictions but ordered that the sentence be modified to provide for concurrent terms. Accordingly, defendant's aggregate sentence became thirty years of imprisonment with fifteen years of parole ineligibility.

In 1997, more than eleven years after our disposition and almost fifteen years after trial, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court, in a letter order dated April 1, 1999, denied both defendant's motion for assignment of counsel and the petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that the relief sought was "time barred." In an unpublished opinion filed on November 22, 2000 under docket no. A-4519-98, we reversed and remanded with a direction that the matter should be referred to the Office of the Public Defender for the provision of counsel as required by R. 3:22-6(a) in respect of all first-time petitions for post-conviction relief.

On December 13, 2001, defendant filed another pro se petition for post-conviction relief along with a pro se motion for an "evidentiary hearing, . . . subpoena[s,] . . . writs for witnesses' testimony, . . . production of trial transcripts," and other relief. On July 15, 2004, defense counsel filed a brief with exhibits in support of the petition.

In an oral opinion rendered on November 29, 2004, Judge Kennedy denied the petition on the basis that it was time-barred, that defendant had made no adequate showing of reasons to overcome the time bar, and because the lapse of so much time would severely prejudice the State in prosecuting the charges anew. Regarding the substance of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court evaluated the showing made as inadequate to justify further inquiry, in any event.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

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

A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND CALL FAVORABLE WITNESSES.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONSULT WITH DEFENDANT IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER.

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

POINT III THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS ARE NOT TIME BARRED UNDER R. 3:22-12.

POINT IV THE LOWER COURT ORDER MUST BE REVERSED SINCE THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS OF COUNSEL AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

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

POINT VI DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH THE PCR PETITION AND THE LOWER COURT ORDER MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED.

 
We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards, and we are in substantial agreement with the reasons Judge Kennedy expressed for the decision he reached. The arguments defendant presents are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2681-04T4

March 15, 2006