STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAUL FLORES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5555-07T45555-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RAUL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 18, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Stern and Rodr guez.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No.

97-12-2206.

Raul Flores, appellant pro se.

John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Catherine A. Foddai,

Senior Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the denial of his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following his murder conviction in 1998. We affirmed the conviction and the denial of his first PCR petition. Judge Patrick Roma denied his second petition as time barred and procedurally barred because the present claim could have been raised at trial, on the direct appeal and on the first PCR. See R. 3:22-4, -12.

We affirm the denial of the second PCR substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Roma in his written opinion of May 28, 2008. We also reject defendant's claim on the merits.

The defendant contends he was deprived of his rights under the Vienna Convention, and states if they had been honored he would have communicated with the consulate of El Salvador, or the consulate would have reached him before trial, he would have received effective counsel, and in any event, he would have received sufficient advice to avoid giving a confession. He asserts his counsel at the trial and appellate levels were ineffective for not raising the issue, and had the Vienna Convention been honored, the result of the proceedings would have been different. However, violation of the Convention would not warrant suppression of defendant's statement. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2006); State v. Carbrera, 387 N.J. Super. 81, 86 (App. Div. 2006). See also Medellin v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2008). In other words, a violation of the Vienna Convention does not warrant suppression of a statement following an otherwise knowing and voluntary waiver and compliance with Miranda, and does not affect an otherwise valid conviction.

 
Affirmed.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5555-07T4

March 31, 2009