STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD ALFANO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0284-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDWARD ALFANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 16, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 93-06-1034.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a); one count of sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); another count of sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c); and endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to a ten-year term of imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault and concurrent five-year terms for the sexual assaults. The court merged defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child into his other convictions.

On appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions in an unreported opinion. State v. Alfano, No. A-2949-00 (May 23, 2003). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 178 N.J. 453 (2004).

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, following which the trial court issued a lengthy written opinion denying the petition. This opinion also indicated that the court would enter an amended judgment of conviction modifying defendant's sentence. However, that amended judgment has not been provided to us and no issue regarding defendant's sentence has been raised on this appeal.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT ONE: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION

RELIEF BECAUSE THE STATE'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE VICTIM'S PSE TAPE DEPRIVED

DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

POINT TWO: DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO

AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND/OR POST-

CONVICTION RELIEF BASED ON THE REMAINING

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY DEFENDANT AND

DEFENSE COUNSEL.

We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Paley's February 28, 2005 written decision. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0284-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

January 9, 2009