STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DWIGHT BELL

(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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2980-07T42980-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DWIGHT BELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

 

Submitted April 1, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Rodr guez and Payne.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 97-12-3644.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In September 1998, defendant Dwight Bell, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1). These charges stemmed from his commission of fellatio on D.W., a boy who was eleven years old at the time. The State agreed to recommend a sentence not to exceed a ten-year term. Consistent with the plea agreement, Judge Linda Baxter imposed a ten-year term subject to parole supervision for life pursuant to Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -21. Defendant did not appeal.

Almost six years after the date of conviction, defendant filed, pro se, an application to reduce the term of parole supervision. Judge Baxter denied this application because fifteen years had not elapsed from the time defendant was placed on parole. Almost seven years after his conviction, defendant filed a first petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In the petition, he alleged that he was confused and unaware of the community supervision requirement at the time of the entry of the plea, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not advising him of the requirement.

Judge Stephen Holden denied the petition because it was time-barred and procedurally-barred. Further, Judge Holden found that a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of trial counsel had not been established.

On appeal, defendant contends:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] RELIEF.

A. Defendant's Petition Was Not Barred.

B. Defendant Established At Least A Prima Facie Case Of Ineffective Assistance Of Plea Counsel.

We disagree and affirm, concluding that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Moreover, we agree with Judge Holden that the petition is time-barred by operation of Rule 3:22-12 and procedurally barred by virtue of Rule 3:22-4, grounds not raised in prior proceedings.

We also note that, if we were to reach the merits, the petition would be denied because the nature of community supervision for life was explained to defendant at the time of the plea hearing. The judge carefully distinguished its conditions from those of regular parole. Moreover, we agree with Judge Holden that there was no basis to limit community supervision on the grounds of hardship.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2980-07T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

June 12, 2009