STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARLOS ALVES

 

(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)

                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 binding only 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-2944-15T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARLOS ALVES,

        Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

              Submitted October 18, 2017 – Decided March 12, 2018

              Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No.
              99-10-03250.

              Carlos Alves, appellant pro se.

              Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
              Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (LeeAnn
              Cunningham, Special Deputy Attorney General/
              Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Carlos Alves was tried before a jury and convicted

of murder, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1).              On March 16, 2001, the trial

court sentenced defendant to a term of thirty years imprisonment
without parole. On direct appeal, this court affirmed defendant's

conviction and sentence.    State v. Alves, No. A-4355-00 (App. Div.

2003).    The    Supreme   Court   denied   defendant's   petition   for

certification.    State v. Alves, 
178 N.J. 455 (2004).

     On November 17, 2015, defendant filed a pro se motion in the

Law Division, Criminal Part, seeking reversal of his conviction.

Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli denied defendant's motion in a letter-

opinion dated December 24, 2015.        As Judge Cifelli explained,

defendant's motion is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5

because the claims of alleged legal errors committed by the trial

judge were previously considered and rejected by this court on

direct appeal.

     Defendant now appeals from Judge Cifelli's decision raising

the following arguments:

          POINT I

          THE COURT CONFUSED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
          INVESTIGATION   STATEMENT   WTH   DEFENDANT'S
          ARGUMENT OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF
          PROFESSIONAL    CONDUCT   FOR    INTERPRETERS
          TRANSLITERATORS AND TRANSLATORS.

          POINT II

          THE COURT ERRED IN BARRING THE FACT THAT THE
          ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR PROVIDE THE JURY HIS
          UNPROVEN STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS AS FACT IN
          HIS SUMMATION.




                                    2                           A-2944-15T4
           POINT III

           THE   COURT   ERRED  IN  CATEGOUZING  [SIC]
           DEFENDANT'S PETITION AS A MOTION TO CORRECT
           AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE.

     The   State   argues   defendant's   appeal   should   be   dismissed

because Judge Cifelli did not enter an order denying defendant's

motion.    See R. 2:2-3(a).       Although the State's argument is

technically correct, we have opted to consider Judge Cifelli's

December 24, 2015 letter-opinion as the functional equivalent of

a final order under these circumstances.           Defendant's arguments

lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed

by Judge Cifelli.

     Affirmed.




                                   3                               A-2944-15T4