STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTE KING

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1600-05T41600-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARTE KING,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

 

Submitted December 5, 2006 - Decided December 21, 2006

Before Judges Skillman and Lisa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 00-08-1741.

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

Jeffrey S. Blitz, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jack J. Lipari, Assistant County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of robbery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and eluding a police officer, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b). The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of eighteen years, with eight years of parole ineligibility, on the robbery conviction, and a consecutive eight year term, with three years of parole ineligibility, on the eluding conviction.

On appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence in an unreported opinion. State v. King, No. A-1179-01T4 (Jan. 2, 2003). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 177 N.J. 219 (2003).

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged that he had received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The trial court denied the petition by a letter opinion issued on September 29, 2005.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

I. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.

A. STANDARDS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

B. COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE ALL APPROPRIATE MOTIONS.

C. AS A RESULT OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN PARTICULAR, THE FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL DEFENSES, PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL. U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. I, 10.

II. COUNSEL'S CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS SO INADEQUATE IT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

III. COUNSEL'S STRATEGY WAS SO BAD AS TO CONSTITUTE THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

IV. COUNSEL FAILED TO ENTER ALL APPROPRIATE OBJECTIONS.

V. PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING. (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, 10).

VI. PETITIONER'S COUNSEL COMMITTED CUMULATIVE ERRORS.

VII. PETITIONER'S SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL.

VIII. APPELLLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.

We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Garofalo's September 29, 2005 letter opinion.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1600-05T4

December 21, 2006