STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RASHAUN BARKLEY

Annotate this Case

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 
 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RASHAUN BARKLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

October 12, 2016

 

Submitted October 5, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 93-04-1390.

Rashaun Barkley, appellant pro se.

Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rashaun Barkley appeals from the trial court's December 16, 2014 order denying reconsideration of its July 7, 2014 order rejecting his fourth petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") and related motion to correct an allegedly-illegal sentence.

Defendant is serving a life sentence plus fifty years with a fifty-year parole disqualifier. His sentence arises from his conviction at a 1994 jury trial of felony murder, five counts of first-degree robbery, and other offenses. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in 1997. State v. Barkley, No. A-0467-94 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 1997). Certification was denied. State v. Barkley, 149 N.J. 410 (1997).

Since that time, defendant has unsuccessfully pursued three petitions for PCR relief, all of which were denied by the trial court, and likewise rejected on appeal. See State v. Barkley, Nos. A-2462-05 and A-2464-05 (consolidated) (App. Div. Aug. 26, 2008) (affirming the denial of two PCR petitions), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 312 (2009); and State v. Barkley, No. A-5508-11 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2013) (affirming denial of defendant's third PCR petition), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 6 (2013). Defendant also unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief in the federal district and circuit courts, culminating in two successive denials of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. See Barkley v. Glover, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 834, 178 L. Ed. 2d 879 (2010); Barkley v. Ortiz, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1575, 182 L. Ed. 2d 194 (2012).

In his present application, defendant contended that he was allegedly not informed by his counsel prior to trial of a supposed ten-year plea offer by the State. He further contended that an April 22, 2014 order, allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilt to a juvenile escape adjudication, materially affected the sentencing analysis, and that he is entitled to resentencing without that juvenile infraction serving as support for an aggravating factor.

The trial court issued a letter on July 7, 2014 denying all of defendant's present claims as untimely and without merit. The court thereafter denied reconsideration in the December 16, 2014 order presently on appeal. The trial court considered on reconsideration several letters sent by defendant, all of which failed to demonstrate that his claims were not time-barred under Rule 3:22-12(a). Apart from this procedural bar, the trial court further noted that defendant had failed to provide adequate sworn corroboration, other than hearsay statements his certification attributed to his uncle, that the State had ever communicated a ten-year plea offer to his trial attorney. The court also found no basis to reconsider defendant's sentence.

Having examined defendant's arguments in light of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief, substantially for the sound procedural and substantive reasons expressed by Judge Robert H. Gardner in his July 7, 2014 letter opinion and his subsequent December 16, 2014 letter opinion denying reconsideration. To the extent we have not explicitly discussed them, the issues raised by defendant are utterly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.