STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN DITZLER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3339-08T43339-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN DITZLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 2, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes.

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

No. 05-01-00066-A.

James S. Friedman, attorney for appellant.

Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jennifer Stonerod, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4), and endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). Pursuant to a plea bargain under which the State agreed to dismiss the sexual assault charge and to recommend that defendant be sentenced to probation, conditioned upon his serving 364 days in the Burlington County Jail, defendant pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. Before the scheduled sentencing date, defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After hearing argument by counsel, the trial court denied the motion. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a probationary term, conditioned on defendant serving 364 days in the Burlington County Jail.

On defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we affirmed in an unreported opinion. State v. Ditzler, No. A-0210-05T5 (Dec. 12, 2006). We also denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief or, in the alternative, a motion for a modification of the terms of his supervision under Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's petition for post-conviction relief at which defendant's original counsel, who negotiated the plea agreement on his behalf, gave extensive testimony.

By a written decision filed on February 2, 2009, Judge Smith denied both defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and his motion for modification of the terms and conditions of his supervision under Megan's Law.

On appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT A:

THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED THE PCR MOTION, AND ITS DECISION MUST BE REVERSED.

1. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL; THE APPROPRIATE

LEGAL STANDARD.

a. Post-Conviction Relief.

b. Effective Assistance of

Counsel.

2. THE FOREGOING STANDARDS AS

APPLIED TO THIS CASE.

a. Post-Conviction Relief.

b. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

The appeal does not challenge the denial of defendant's motion for modification of the terms and conditions of his supervision under Megan's Law, which the trial court said defendant should pursue through "tiering proceedings."

We reject the arguments defendant presents on this appeal substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Smith's February 2, 2009 written decision. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3339-08T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

June 21, 2010