STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HORACE COOPER

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0109-06T40109-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HORACE COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 29, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges A.A. Rodr guez and C.S. Fisher.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 95-04-807.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Joshua M. Ottenberg, Special Deputy Attorney General, Acting Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Robert K. Uyehara, Special Deputy Attorney General, Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Tried to a jury, defendant was convicted of first-degree possession with the intent to distribute five or more ounces of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), and third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1). The offenses merged for sentencing purposes and, on January 5, 1999, the trial judge entered a judgment of conviction, which imposed an eighteen-year prison term with a six-year period of parole ineligibility.

In his direct appeal, defendant argued that: (1) double jeopardy principles barred the trial because an earlier mistrial was provoked by prosecutorial misconduct; (2) his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the erroneous exclusion of exculpatory cross-examination; (3) jury instructions regarding the first-degree offense were erroneous; and (4) the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. We rejected these arguments and affirmed for the reasons contained in an unpublished opinion filed on September 17, 2002. Docket No. A-4665-98T4. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 175 N.J. 70 (2002).

Defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on April 15, 2005. After hearing the argument of counsel, the judge denied the petition.

Defendant appealed, raising the following arguments for our consideration:

I. THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

A. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL BARS OF R. 3:22-4, R. 3:22-5, AND R. 3:22-12 IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

B. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

II. THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL (NOT RAISED BELOW).

III. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH 10, OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). The post-conviction relief petition was filed more than five years after entry of the judgment of conviction, R. 3:22-12, and defendant failed to present, or attempt to present, exceptional circumstances for granting relief from that time-bar.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0109-06T4

November 13, 2007

 


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.