STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HENRY L. WRIGHT, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0990-09T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HENRY L. WRIGHT, III,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

November 12, 2010

Submitted October 6, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Kestin and Coburn.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Indictment Nos. 05-04-0129 and 05-04-1972.

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

John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Thomas A. DeSimone, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of murder and related charges in 2006. The aggregate sentence imposed was imprisonment for thirty years without parole. On direct appeal, we affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certification. Defendant then moved for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the order dated July 13, 2009. On appeal from that order, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION AT THE TRIAL LEVEL.

A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.

B. THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT TRIAL BY VIRTUE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S ACCOMPLICE, SHAREER CLAYTON.

C. THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT TRIAL BY VIRTUE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INSURE THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY, AS IT INDICATED IT WOULD DO SO IN RESPONDING TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S OBJECTION, REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF A BOMB-SNIFFING DOG IN THE COURTROOM.

POINT II:

THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL BY VIRTUE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE A BONA FIDE ISSUE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY SUPPORTED BY THE TRIAL RECORD.

After considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the written opinion by Judge Forester filed on June 30, 2009.