STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY SCALES

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2291-07T42291-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BARRY SCALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

 

Submitted December 16, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Chambers.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.

01-09-1636.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (David A. Snyder, Designated Counsel,

of counsel and on the brief).

Luis A. Valentin, Monmouth County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Patricia B. Quelch,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; Jacqueline A.

Farrell, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Barry Scales appeals from the order of the trial court denying his post conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.

On June 5, 2002, a jury convicted defendant of second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), as a lesser- included offense of attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, third-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(2), and third-degree possession of a weapon (knife) for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1(b)(1), the court sentenced defendant on July 17, 2002, to an extended term of twenty years, with ten years of parole ineligibility.

On defendant's direct appeal, we affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Scales, Docket No. A-0393-02, (App. Div. Feb. 5, 2004). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Scales, 179 N.J. 374 (2004). On February 13, 2007, defendant filed the PCR petition under review here alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and an unspecified claim of errors that denied him a fair trial.

On October 11, 2007, the PCR petition was presented for adjudication before Judge Chaiet. Assigned PCR counsel argued defendant was wrongly convicted because his trial counsel did not adequately present his claim of self-defense to the jury.

After considering the argument of counsel, reviewing the evidence presented at trial, and considering the issues raised and decided on direct appeal, Judge Chaiet concluded that the PCR petition was barred under Rule 3:22-5 because the petition sought to re-litigate issues previously decided on direct appeal.

Defendant now appeals raising the following arguments:

POINT ONE

THE COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION WITHOUT GRANTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

POINT TWO

APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT RAISING ON DIRECT APPEAL TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. (Not Raised Below).

These arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Chaiet in his well-reasoned, oral opinion delivered from the bench on October 11, 2007.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2291-07T4

June 5, 2009