STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DEON WILLIAMS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3836-04T43836-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DEON WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

 

Submitted April 4, 2006 - Decided October 3, 2006

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County, Ind. No. 99-10-1701.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Thomas Menchin, Designated

Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Edward J. DeFazio, Hudson County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Kristen Brewer,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Deon Williams appeals from an order of February 22, 2005, denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He makes the following arguments for our consideration.

POINT I - DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL.

POINT II - THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING WHEREIN DEFENDANT COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THOSE CLAIMS WHICH REQUIRED THAT EVIDENCE BE TAKEN.

POINT III - THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO RESENTENCE DEFENDANT.

Following a jury trial, defendant and co-defendant Daketrick Leaks were convicted of armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; conspiracy to commit armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and 2C:5-2; possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); unlawful possession of weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); eluding police, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b); receipt of stolen property, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7; and resisting arrest, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a).

On January 23, 2001, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty years with an eighty-five percent NERA parole disqualifier. We affirmed the convictions and sentence in an opinion filed on October 23, 2003, and defendant's petition for certification was denied on January 21, 2004. He filed a petition for PCR on March 22, 2004. Judge Callahan submitted a comprehensive written opinion on February 14, 2005, in which he concluded that defendant did not provide the court with prima facie proof of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the U.S. Const. Amend. V, VI, XIV and N.J. Const. Art. I, Para. 1, 10. After consideration of the record and defendant's arguments, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Callahan in his written decision of February 14, 2005.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3836-04T4

 

October 3, 2006