STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RASOOL JONES

(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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4575-07T44575-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RASOOL JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

 

Submitted June 2, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Collester and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,

Indictment No. 99-12-3755.

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

Warren W. Faulk, Camden County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Patrick D. Isbill, Assistant Prosecutor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rasool Jones appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to second-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2), in return for the State's agreement to recommend a sentence of incarceration for eight years, three without possibility of parole to be served concurrent with a sentence on a separate indictment. At the time of his plea, defendant acknowledged that he possessed the cocaine and intended to divide and sell it. On August 7, 2000, defendant was sentenced in accordance with that agreement. Appropriate fines, penalties, fees and assessments and the mandatory driver's license suspension were imposed. Six years later, on August 16, 2006, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief and counsel was appointed.

 
We affirm the denial of defendant's petition, which was not filed within the time permitted by Rule 3:22-12, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Snyder in his written decision of November 13, 2007. Defendant's claim that the judge erred in applying Rule 3:22-12 or rejecting his claim that his attorney failed to explain the effect of his sentence lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). His claim that the attorney who represented him at the time of his petition for post-conviction relief did not present certifications he had prepared in support of his claim requires no discussion beyond the observation that the record provided on appeal does not support that contention.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4575-07T4

 

June 19, 2009