STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAWAD AMIN

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.