STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY MARTIN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0391-05T50391-05T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent

v.

ANTHONY MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

 
___________________________________

Submitted June 6, 2006 - Decided June 23, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Union

County, Indictment No. 94-01-133I.

Anthony Martin, appellant pro se.

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Anthony Martin appeals from the order of the Criminal Part denying his second post conviction relief (PCR) petition. Defendant was convicted of second-degree conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; and first-degree leader of a narcotics trafficking network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3. He was sentenced on June 16, 1995, to a term of twenty years with five years of parole ineligibility on the conspiracy conviction, and to a consecutive mandatory life term of imprisonment with twenty-five years of parole ineligibility on the narcotics offense.

On January 12, 1998, we affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal, but remanded the matter for re-sentencing. State v. Martin, No. A-00001-95T4 (App. Div. January 12, 1998) (slip op. at 20). On March 17, 1998, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Martin, 153 N.J. 216 (1998). Defendant then filed his first PCR petition. The trial court denied the petition and we affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Martin, No. A-349-02T3 (App. Div. January 13, 2004) (slip op. at 23-24). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Martin, 180 N.J. 453 (2004).

With respect to this second PCR petition, defendant raises the following arguments in support of his appeal.

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS [WERE] CONFUSING AND MISLEADING, THUS VIOLATING DEFENDANT'S 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE A CAUTIONARY AND SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY CONCERNING UNANIMITY.

POINT III

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION(S). ALSO, POST CONVICTION ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO RAISE POINT II, SUPRA, ON POST CONVICTION RELIEF.

In his reply letter brief, defendant raises the following issue:

POINT I

DEFENDANT IS NOT BARRED BY RULE 3:22-5, NOR RULE 3:22-12(a).

Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0391-05T5

June 23, 2006