STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STANFORD ARMSTEAD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STANFORD ARMSTEAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

December 23, 2013

DECEMBER 23,

Submitted December 10, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 06-04-328.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (David A. Snyder, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (G. Harrison Walters, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Stanford Armstead appeals from a May 9, 2012 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm on the basis of the thorough, well-reasoned opinion of Judge Darrell M. Fineman. After an initial dead-locked jury, a second jury convicted defendant of third-degree endangering the welfare of a twelve-year-old child. N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). He was acquitted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1). Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), to an extended term of eight years in prison with a four-year term of parole ineligibility. We affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Armstead, No. A-4142-08 (App. Div. December 7, 2010). We incorporate herein the facts as outlined in that opinion. Id. slip op. at 3-4. Only the victim and a police officer testified at trial. Defendant claimed in his PCR petition that, although trial counsel cross-examined the victim extensively, counsel was ineffective in not developing all of the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issue:

POINT I: THE PCR COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY NOT GRANTING THE DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

A deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance occurs when: (1) an attorney provides inadequate representation and (2) that deficient performance causes the defendant prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 57-58 (1987). An evidentiary hearing is only necessary if defendant has made a prima facie demonstration of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). A defendant must set forth more than "bald assertions." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).

We affirm for the reasons expressed in Judge Fineman's thorough opinion of May 9, 2012.

Affirmed.