STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EFRAIN CINTRON
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6319-04T46319-04T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EFRAIN CINTRON,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Submitted July 3, 2006 - Decided July 31, 2006
Before Judges Collester and Weissbard.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County,
Ind. No. 02-03-0552.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Jack Gerber, Designated Counsel,
of counsel and on the brief).
Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Kristen Brewer, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Efrain Cintron appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) challenging his 2002 conviction for second-degree robbery and resulting seven-year sentence, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirm.
Defendant filed his PCR petition pro se, raising two issues. As reframed by assigned counsel in a supplemental brief, the issues were:
POINT I
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO ASK THE TRIAL COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CULPABILITY FOR CRIMES.
POINT II
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER.
After hearing oral argument, Judge Schultz denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, setting forth his ruling on the record on June 30, 2005.
On appeal defendant presents two issues for our consideration:
POINT I
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
POINT II
THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO STATE V. NESBITT.
In addition, in a supplemental pro se brief, defendant argues:
POINT I
STATUTES ARE NOT ICONS AND CAN NOT ABROGATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
POINT II
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HAS OCCURRED PRIOR TO TRIAL, NOT BECAUSE COUNSEL DID PROVIDE DISCOVERY MATERIAL, BUT BECAUSE NO INVESTIGATION INSUED [sic] TO DISPROVE THAT DISCOVERY MATERIAL.
Having reviewed defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law, we find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons well-expressed by Judge Schultz in his June 30, 2005 oral opinion.
However, the sentencing argument raised by counsel was not advanced to or addressed by the PCR judge, requiring that we discuss it briefly. State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (2006), does not mandate the vacation of defendant's sentence. In Nesbitt, the defendant received a nine-year term with four and one-half years of parole ineligibility based on a finding of aggravating factors three, six and nine. Id. at 510 n.1. The Court remanded for a re-sentencing in light of State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005). Id. at 519. In this case, defendant received a presumptive term of seven years. Natale is, therefore, inapplicable. Even if the rationale of Natale could be deemed applicable to defendant, his case does not fall within the "pipeline" to which Natale granted retroactive application. Natale, supra, 184 N.J. at 494. Thus, there is no merit to defendant's sentencing argument.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-6319-04T4
July 31, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.