STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KHALIF O. JAMES

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

KHALIF O. JAMES, a/k/a

OMAR KHALIF,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

December 22, 2015

Submitted December 15, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 97-07-0733.

Khalif O. James, appellant pro se.

GraceH. Park, ActingUnion County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Milton S.Leibowitz, Special DeputyAttorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the denial of his second petition for post-conviction relief. For the following reasons, we dismiss his appeal.

In his amended notice of appeal, defendant identified an order, dated August 8, 2014, denying his motion for reconsideration as the order appealed from. In the accompanying criminal case information statement, defendant states he is appealing the denial of his PCR petition and states the court issued oral findings or an opinion on June 13, 2014. He did not provide his second PCR petition, the transcript of the court's oral findings or the order denying that petition. The only order provided in conjunction with the notice of appeal is the order denying his motion for reconsideration and, as to that, we have not been provided with the court's reasons.

Defendant was required to annex a copy of the order appealed from to his case information statement. R. 2:5-1(f)(2). He was also required to include in his appendix: "the judgment, order or determination appealed from or sought to be reviewed or enforced," R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(C), "any opinions or statement of findings and conclusions," R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(D), and "such other parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues." R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I).

Defendant's failure to provide an adequate record on appeal, as required by Rule 2:6-1, precludes us from reviewing his arguments on the merits. We are not "obliged to attempt review of an issue when the relevant portions of the record are not included." State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472, 489 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Cmty. Hosp. Group, Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, P.C., 381 N.J. Super. 119, 127 (App. Div. 2005), certif. denied, 187 N.J. 489 (2006)), certif. denied, 221 N.J. 287 (2015).

Appeal dismissed.