STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMIE PANDURE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0609-08T40609-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMIE PANDURE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

 

Submitted April 20, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment

No. 96-03-0371.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Luis A. Valentin, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patricia B. Quelch, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of murdering his wife. The trial court sentenced defendant to a seventy-five year term of imprisonment, with thirty years of parole ineligibility.

On defendant's direct appeal, we affirmed his conviction and sentence in an unreported opinion. State v. Pandure, No.

A-1078-98T4 (July 25, 2001). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 170 N.J. 208 (2001).

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Judge Neafsey denied defendant's petition for the reasons expressed in a comprehensive oral opinion.

On appeal, the Public Defender submitted a brief on defendant's behalf which presents the following arguments:

POINT I:

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE REVERSED DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL WAS ESTABLISHED.

A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT

TO THE STATE'S USE OF A TIME

CHART DURING SUMMATION, FAILED

TO HAVE IT ADMITTED FOR THE

JURY'S CONSIDERATION AFTER THE

STATE'S SUMMATION, AND FAILED

TO PRESENT A DEFENSE GRAPHIC

DISPLAY.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT

TO JUROR NO. 13 WHO CONTAMINATED

THE JURY POOL.

C. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PURSUE

THE JURY'S HAVING EXTRA-JUDICIAL

INFORMATION.

D. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO MOVE

FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL, RESULTING

IN DEFENDANT NOT BEING TRIED

FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER

HIS ARREST.

E. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST

A LIMITING INSTRUCTION REGARDING

THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION OF

DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL DISTRESS

BEFORE HIS WIFE'S DEATH.

F. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT

AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION.

G. THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS REGARDING

TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS

MANDATE THAT DEFENDANT'S CON-

VICTIONS BE REVERSED OR THAT HE

BE AFFORDED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

POINT II:

THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR THE PCR COURT TO STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS IN HIS PRO SE PETITION. (Not Raised Below).

In addition, defendant submitted a pro se supplemental brief which presents the following arguments:

POINT I:

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED UNDER BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS DUE TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S ERRORS AND THEREFORE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED, OR AT LEAST, GRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE HE PRESENTED PRIMA FACIE PROOF THAT HE WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND BECAUSE HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON HIS FIRST PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (Partially Raised Below).

A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT

TO THE STATE'S USE OF A TIME

CHART FULL OF MISREPRESENTATIONS

DURING SUMMATION, AND ONCE

PRESENTED BEFORE THE JURY,

HAVE THE TIME CHART ADMITTED

FOR THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT

TO THE SEATING OF JUROR NO. 13,

WHO CONTAMINATED THE JURY POOL,

AND FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MIS-

TRIAL DUE TO THE MISCONDUCT

OF JUROR NO. 12 AND JUROR NO. 13.

C. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PURSUE

THE JURY'S EXTRA-JUDICIAL

INFORMATION.

D. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO MOVE

FOR THE DISMISSAL OF A FEMALE

JUROR AFTER HAVING BEEN SEATED

AND OBSERVING DEFENDANT IN

RESTRAINTS, OR IN THE ALTERNA-

TIVE, MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL.

E. DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

WHEN HIS ASSIGNED ATTORNEY

FAILED TO PREPARE AN ADEQUATE

BRIEF, ADVANCE DEFENDANT'S

CLAIMS WITH SUPPORTING

AFFIDAVITS, AND FAILED TO

PROVIDE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE

AT THE HEARING WITH RESPECT

TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST PETITION

FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

(Not Raised Below).

POINT II:

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING BECAUSE HE, AT LEAST, PRESENTED

A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND BECAUSE THE PCR COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT FAIRLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

We reject the arguments presented under Point I of the Public Defender's brief and Points I(A), (B) and (C) of defendant's pro se supplemental brief substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Neafsey's oral opinion. Defendant's other arguments are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-0609-08T4

May 5, 2010