STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHRISTOPHER CHARRIEZ

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0877-06T40877-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER CHARRIEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 10, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Stern and Coburn.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County, 00-02-0235.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Carolyn V. Bostic, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Gina Giordano, Assistant

Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

After defendant was charged with murder and related offenses, he entered into a negotiated plea with the State pursuant to which he pled guilty to the lesser included offense of aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant received a prison sentence of twenty-five years subject to the No Early Release Act. He appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive, and we affirmed. He then filed the petition for post-conviction relief, which is the subject of this appeal.

On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED BY R. 3:22-2(C) AND R. 3:22-5.

POINT II

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION WHERE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF SENTENCING COUNSEL WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT VIABLE MITIGATING EVIDENCE.

POINT III

THE ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANT'S PRO SE BRIEF, IF ANY, SUPPORT HIS REQUEST FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

 
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that, apart from Point I, all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Veneble in her oral opinion of August 7, 2006. The Point I argument is moot since the judge also ruled on the merits.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-0877-06T4

June 20, 2008