STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RODNEY KEY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6115-03T46115-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RODNEY KEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

 

Submitted October 19, 2005 - Decided February 14, 2006

Before Judges Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson

County, Indictment No. 92-07-1243.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Thomas Menchin,

Designated Counsel, of counsel and on

the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Lora B. Glick,

Deputy Attorney General, of counsel

and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rodney Key appeals from the order of the Law Division, Criminal Part, denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. Defendant is serving a life sentence for multiple violent crimes including first-degree aggravated sexual assault, first-degree armed robbery, first-degree kidnapping and fourth-degree aggravated assault. The complete procedural history of this matter has many twists and turns, mainly due to defendant's protracted criminal history. We incorporate by reference the recitation of the relevant procedural history, as reflected in our unpublished, per curiam opinion filed on March 31, 1998 (A-3260-95T4), which affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. We further note the Supreme Court's denial of defendant's petition for certification. State v. Key, 156 N.J. 386 (1998).

The issues that bring about this appeal arise from a PCR petition filed by defendant on October 20, 1998, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Law Division denied the petition without oral argument, and without conducting an evidentiary hearing. On defendant's appeal from the Law Division's order, we reversed and remanded the matter, noting that:

[t]he severity of a life sentence surely warrants the court's express consideration of defendant's ineffective assistance claim and an explanation of the reasons for denying a hearing or denying relief after a hearing.

[State v. Key, No. A-4614-00T4, slip op. at 7 (App. Div. June 4, 2004).]

On remand, defendant was assigned counsel and on February 19, 2004, Judge Davis heard the matter. After considering the arguments of counsel and the documentary evidence presented, Judge Davis issued a memorandum of opinion dated March 9, 2004, denying the PCR petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Defendant now appeals from that denial, raising the following arguments.

POINT I

THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING CONCERNING WHAT DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY HIS TRIAL COUNSEL AS TO WHAT SENTENCE HE SHOULD EXPECT IF HE WERE TO PLEAD GUILTY.

POINT II

DEFENDANT'S ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF ON THEIR MERITS.

We reject defendant's arguments and affirm substantially based on the reasons expressed by Judge Davis in her memorandum of opinion.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6115-03T4

February 14, 2006