STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL RICHARDS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                  APPELLATE DIVISION
                                  DOCKET NO. A-1315-07T4



STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

     Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL RICHARDS,

     Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

         Submitted December 14, 2009 - Decided January 5, 2010

         Before Judges Rodríguez, Yannotti and
         Chambers.

         On appeal from the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,
         Indictment No. 00-01-0045.

         Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,
         attorney for appellant (Philip Lago,
         Designated Counsel, on the brief).

         Robert A. Bianchi, Morris County Prosecutor,
         attorney for respondent (John P. Graves,
         Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).


PER CURIAM

     Defendant Michael Richards appeals from the denial of his

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), raising numerous

issues including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

counsel.    We affirm.

    Defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree

possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one);

third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute,

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and (b)(3) (count two); third-degree

distribution of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and (b)(3)

(count three); and second-degree distribution of cocaine within

500 feet of public housing or a public park, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1

(count four).    He was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment

with five years of parole ineligibility on count four and

received a concurrent sentence of five years on count two.

Counts one and three were merged into counts two and four

respectively.     The sentence ran consecutively with a sentence on

an unrelated offense.

    The evidence that gave rise to these convictions is

described in further detail in our decision affirming the

conviction and sentence and by the trial court in its PCR

decision.     We therefore provide the following abbreviated

version of events.

    On July 20, 1998, an undercover detective purchased three

bags of cocaine from an individual in Manahan Village in

Morristown.     The person selling the cocaine was wearing




                                                               A-1315-07T4
                                  2

distinctive clothing.    After making the purchase, within one to

two minutes the detective radioed his back-up with a description

of the person who had sold him the cocaine.     Within thirty to

forty-five seconds of receiving that information, the back-up

officer went to the location, saw the person matching the

detective's description, and recognized that person as

defendant.    One year later defendant was arrested on the

narcotics charges noted above, and two years later he was

convicted by a jury and thereafter sentenced.

    We affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal.       State

v. Richards, Docket No. A-5560-01 (App. Div. April 23, 2003).

Defendant thereafter filed a PCR petition.    The trial court held

an evidentiary hearing in which defendant and defendant's trial

counsel testified.   In a lengthy oral opinion the court denied

the relief.

    Defendant now appeals the denial of his post-conviction

relief application raising the following points.

         POINT I

         THE LOWER COURT ORDER MUST BE REVERSED SINCE
         DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
         TRIAL COUNSEL.

                A.   Trial counsel failed to request
                additional discovery concerning the
                involvement of a confidential informant
                and failed to request an adjournment to
                allow an investigation.




                                                             A-1315-07T4
                                 3

              B.   Trial counsel failed to seek the
              identity of the confidential informant.

              C.   Trial counsel failed to challenge
              the admissibility of the drug tests.

              D.   Trial counsel was ineffective
              during opening and closing statements.

              E.   Trial counsel failed to
              effectively cross-examine Sergeant
              Meehan and failed to object to his non-
              responsive testimony.

              F.   Trial counsel failed to move for
              dismissal on the basis of the State's
              unreasonable delay in proceeding with
              the case.

              G.   Trial counsel's strategy was
              unreasonable and ineffective.

         POINT II

         THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION
         MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED
         INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

         POINT III

         THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION
         MUST BE REVERSED SINCE CUMULATIVE ERRORS
         RENDERED THE TRIAL UNFAIR.

         POINT IV

         THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION
         MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS
         ARE NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED UNDER R. 3:22-5.


    After a careful review of the record, arguments of counsel,

and the governing law, we affirm substantially for the reasons




                                                         A-1315-07T4
                               4

set forth by Judge Ahto in his comprehensive oral decision

placed on the record on May 17, 2007.

    Affirmed.




                                                         A-1315-07T4
                               5