STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAWAD AMIN
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6534-06T46534-06T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAWAD AMIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
Submitted March 3, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman and Grall.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 98-05-0451.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph L. Bocchini, Jr., Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Michael A. Nardelli, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), and various other offenses in connection with an assault upon a corrections officer in Trenton State Prison. The trial court imposed an extended fifteen-year term of imprisonment, with a seven-and-one-half period of parole ineligibility, for the aggravated assault and a concurrent five-year term, with a two-and-one-half year period of parole ineligibility, for unlawful possession of a weapon. This sentence was made consecutive to a life sentence, with twenty-five years of parole ineligibility, that defendant was then serving for murder. The court merged defendant's convictions for the other offenses.
On appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence in an unreported opinion. State v. Amin, No. A-2882-00T4 (May 9, 2002), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certification. 174 N.J. 366 (2002).
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After briefing and oral argument by assigned counsel, the trial court denied defendant's petition for the reasons set forth in a written opinion.
On appeal to this court from the denial of his petition, defendant presents the following arguments:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR
POST CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT
AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS
CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DENIED
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION
AT THE TRIAL LEVEL IN CERTAIN
DIFFERENT RESPECTS.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL
PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,
EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS
FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.
B. SINCE THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED
A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AS A
RESULT OF COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO
ADVISE HIM OF A FAVORABLE PLEA
OFFER AS WELL AS HIS EXTENDED TERM
ELIGIBILITY IN THE EVENT HE WAS
CONVICTED AT TRIAL, HE WAS
ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS CONTENTION.
C. SINCE THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED
A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS A RESULT
OF COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE HIGHLY
INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL
TESTIMONY ELICITED FROM OFFICER
GUIDO REGARDING A STINGER REMOVED
FROM THE DEFENDANT'S CELL PRIOR TO
THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, HE WAS
ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS CONTENTION.
We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Smithson's July 2, 2007 written opinion.
Affirm.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-6534-06T4
March 18, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.