STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL BLACKNALL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

MICHAEL BLACKNALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

July 7, 2014

Submitted May 6, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 07-08-1722.

Michael Blacknall, appellant pro se.

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Ian D. Brater, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant represented himself with the assistance of counsel at trial and was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and weapon possession offenses. On direct appeal, he was represented by designated counsel and alleged the following errors: the court's permitting a State fact witness to testify as an expert; the court's instruction on expert testimony (plain error); the admission of hearsay evidence; the court's restriction of defendant's cross-examination of the State's key witness; the court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of negligently causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon (plain error); the court's failure to instruct the jury on every element of the crime of aggravated assault (plain error); the court's failure to conduct a proper inquiry regarding defendant's motion to proceed pro se (plain error); cumulative error; violation of defendant's constitutional rights resulting from his reliance upon misinformation in rejecting a plea offer; and excessive sentence. We rejected each of these arguments, affirmed his convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion, State v. Blacknall, Docket No. A-2673-08T4 (App. Div. Jul. 1, 2011), and denied a motion for reconsideration. Defendant's petition for certification was denied, 209 N.J. 430 (2012).

Defendant elected to proceed pro se in pursuing a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). The petition alleged that defendant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise arguments as plain error that all related to the admission of testimony from a lay witness that allegedly exceeded the scope of proper lay opinion testimony, the instruction given, and the impact upon the defense. The PCR judge dismissed the PCR petition as procedurally barred by Rules 3:22-3 and 3:22-4. We agree.

Defendant's argument in this appeal that the PCR judge erred in dismissing his petition lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.