STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE A. BONES

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

JOSE A. BONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

June 15, 2016

Submitted April 25, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 11-08-1869.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

MaryEva Colalillo,Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jason Magid, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jose A. Bones appeals from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

A Camden County grand jury charged defendant in a three-count indictment with first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(2); third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). Defendant negotiated a plea to an amended charge of second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(2), in exchange for the State recommending a seven-year custodial term subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. During the plea colloquy, defendant admitted that while committing a theft from a pharmacy, he produced a knife to make a loss prevention officer fearful of immediate injury. The crime was recorded on a surveillance camera. The court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea's terms.

Defendant appealed his sentence. Following argument on a sentencing calendar, we affirmed the sentence and the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Bones, No. A-3650-11 (App. Div. Aug. 30, 2012), 213 N.J. 390 (2013). Meanwhile, in November 2012, defendant filed his PCR petition.

In his PCR petition, defendant argued his trial counsel was ineffective because she made no sentencing argument and failed to adequately investigate mental health, physical health, and drug problems of defendant in preparation for the sentencing hearing. Defendant also argued his appellate counsel was ineffective because she failed to argue appropriate mitigating factors at oral argument on the sentencing calendar. In a well-reasoned and thorough oral opinion delivered from the bench on January 16, 2014, Judge Frederick J. Schuck denied defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed from the implementing order.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points

POINT I

THE ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE MATTER REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

POINT II

THE ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

POINT [III]

THE ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE UNDER THE STRICKLAND[1] TEST, DEFENDANT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT UNDER THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO HAVE ALL MITIGATING FACTORS DELINEATED AT SENTENCING WAS VIOLATED.

We reject defendant's arguments and affirm the denial of his PCR petition, substantially for the reasons given by Judge Schuck in his oral opinion. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104, S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, 698 (1984).