STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GARNETT BRISCOE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0119-06T40119-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARNETT BRISCOE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 30, 2007 - Decided November 8, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Camden County, 98-12-4323-I.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Arthur J. Owens, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Joshua M. Ottenberg, Acting Camden County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Roseann A. Finn, Acting Assistant Prosecutor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In 1998, defendant was indicted for murder and six other related charges. On January 24, 2000, the parties entered into a plea agreement, and defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter and second-degree aggravated assault. The plea agreement provided that defendant could be sentenced to as much as imprisonment for forty years with thirty-four years to be served with parole. The No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 applied, and defendant waived his right to appeal pursuant to R. 3:9-3(d). The judge imposed consecutive maximum sentences, resulting in an aggregate term that did not exceed the plea agreement.

Defendant appealed, his sentence was affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certification. Defendant then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. At the hearing he was represented by counsel. After considering the briefs and arguments, the judge entered an order denying the petition. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT ONE

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

POINT TWO

THE WITHIN MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED SO THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL MAY BE CONDUCTED.

POINT THREE

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

After carefully considering the briefs and record, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

R. 2:11-3(e)(2). And as to the first two points raised by defendant, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge McNeill in his oral opinion of June 23, 2006.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0119-06T4

November 8, 2007