STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AKBAR NA'IM

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6402-03T46402-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AKBAR NA'IM,

a/k/a RONALD MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 6, 2006 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Collester.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Union County, Indictment

No. 88-02-0124.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Arthur J. Owens, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Steven J. Kaflowitz,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Akbar Na'im, appeals from the order of May 28, 2004, denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of murder and related charges in 1988. He received an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for thirty years. He appealed, and we affirmed in an unreported opinion, State v. Naim, A-1287-88T4, decided on March 14, 1990. In 1992, defendant was denied post-conviction relief. He appealed, we affirmed in an unreported opinion, State v. Naim, A-2848-92T4, decided on June 22, 1995, and the Supreme Court denied certification. The present petition for post-conviction relief was filed on June 1, 2003, and was resolved against defendant by an oral opinion delivered on May 18, 2004, and by entry of the previously noted order.

On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN HIS PETITION POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROCEDURALLY BARRED

A. The Post-Conviction Relief Court Erred in Finding That Rule 3:22-12 Barred Consideration of Defendant's Claim

B. The Trial Court Erred in Finding That Defendant's Petition Was Barred Under Rule 3:22-8

C. The Procedural Bars Applied by the Post-Conviction Relief Court Should be Relaxed as Adherence to them Would Result in an Injustice

POINT TWO

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

POINT THREE

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL

POINT FOUR

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (NOT RAISED BELOW)

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of the arguments offered by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Peim in his thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6402-03T4

December 21, 2005