STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GREGORY BARTHOLOMEW

(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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4801-07T44801-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GREGORY BARTHOLOMEW,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

 

Submitted April 21, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment

No. 98-05-0658.

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

Marlene Lynch Ford, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of three counts of armed robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a(2), and three counts of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d. After mergers of the weapons offense convictions into the armed robbery convictions, defendant, who had been convicted of two prior armed robberies, was sentenced under the "Three Strikes" law, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1a, to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole for the armed robberies.

On appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence in an unreported opinion, State v. Bartholomew, No. A-951-01 (March 5, 2003), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certification, 177 N.J. 572 (2003).

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On November 13, 2007, the trial court delivered a comprehensive oral opinion denying defendant's petition.

On appeal from the denial of his petition, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT I: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COUNSEL

FAILED TO ADVANCE AND THE POST-

CONVICTION RELIEF COURT FAILED

TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES RAISED

IN DEFENDANT'S PETITION DEPRIVING

DEFENDANT OF A FULL AND FAIR

HEARING.

POINT II: DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND PCR

COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF U.S.

CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J.

CONST. ART. I, 10. (Partially

Raised Below).

POINT III: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED

REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT

DENIED DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING.

 
We reject defendant's arguments regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Citta's oral opinion. Defendant's arguments regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of his counsel on the petition are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). That counsel's representation of defendant fully conformed with the requirements of State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1, 13-19 (2002) and State v. Webster, 187 N.J. 254, 257-58 (2006). There is no basis in the record for concluding that any of the additional investigation defendant argues his trial and PCR counsel should have undertaken would have resulted in a different outcome. There is also no basis for concluding that defendant could have mounted a diminished capacity defense.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4801-07T4

May 4, 2009