STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROY DOVE

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0567-04T40567-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROY DOVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted: November 7, 2005 - Decided January 30, 2006

Before Judges A. A. Rodr guez and Alley.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, 97-05-2358.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Philip Lago, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joan E. Love, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Roy Dove, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

In 1998, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the following charges: aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4; felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a; first degree attempted armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; fourth degree unlawful possession of a knife, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d; and third degree possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d. Defendant moved unsuccessfully for a new trial. Following appropriate merger of convictions, the trial judge granted the State's motion for extended term sentencing and imposed a life term without parole on the felony murder conviction, and a consecutive eighteen-month term on the conviction for unlawful possession of a knife. We affirmed on direct appeal, although we remanded for the entry of an amended judgment merging all convictions. State v. Roy Dove, No. A-6522-98T4 (App. Div. October 2, 2000), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 517 (2001).

Defendant filed pro se a first PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance by trial counsel. Specifically, defendant alleged the following deficiencies: failure to challenge one juror for cause, failure to move for the suppression of evidence, and failure to interview defendant's father. Defendant also alleged that a motion pursuant to R. 2:5-5 will need to be filed by counsel to supplement and correct the record concerning an alleged incriminating remark by Detective William Issets. Defendant asked for a plenary hearing.

Judge Thomas R. Vena, denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. He filed a written opinion addressing all issues raised in the PCR petition.

Defendant now appeals contending:

POINT I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.

A. Trial Counsel Did Not Request That The Jury Be Excused Or That The Jurors Be Questioned After It Was Revealed That One Juror, After Being Sworn In, Recalled That Decedent, Keith Banks, Was A Former Boyfriend.

B. Trial Counsel Did Not Request That A Mistrial Be Declared After The State Provided Information With Regard To The Discovery Of The Murder Weapon For The First Time At Trial.

C. Trial Counsel Did Not Object To Testimony About The Knife That Could Not Be Produced and Could Not Be Linked To The Crime.

D. Trial Counsel Did Not Move For Forensic Testing On The Cap Allegedly Found At The Scene and Allegedly Worn By The Perpetrator.

E. Trial Counsel Did Not Object To The Testimony Of Tyrone Brooks As Prejudicial and Speculative.

F. Trial Counsel Did Not Ask Any Of The Witnesses To Confirm Brooks' Whereabouts At The Time Of The Incident.

G. Trial Counsel Did Not Ask The State's Witnesses If They Had Been Charged With The Drug Offenses To Which They Were Admitting.

POINT II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

POINT III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS.

POINT IV

THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS ARE NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED UNDER R. 3:33-5.

POINT V

THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSED SINCE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS ARE NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED UNDER R. 3:22-4.

Defendant submitted pro se a supplemental brief contending:

POINT I

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAM ISETTS WAS FORCED TO RESIGN FOR OFFICER MISCONDUCT AND HE ACCUSED DEFENDANT OF MAKING AN UNSUPPORTED INCRIMINATING STATEMENT WHICH HAS SHOWN TO BE VERY PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT DURING TRIAL AND THROUGHOUT HIS APPEALS PROCESS WHICH VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS ENUNCIATED IN THE V, VI, XIV, AMEND. TO THE CONST. 1947, ART. 1 8, 10 OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Not Raised Below).

We have carefully reviewed these allegations against the record and conclude that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Moreover, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Vena in his November 10, 2003 opinion. We simply note that, according to the State's brief, Investigator Issets retired from the [Essex County] Prosecutor's Office in "good standing," and later "obtained a position on the federal level." Therefore, the allegation raised in the supplemental brief is not supported by the facts.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-0567-04T4

January 30, 2006

 


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.