STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTOINE AIKENS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0225-06T40225-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTOINE AIKENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________

 

Submitted July 10, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Grall.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 98-07-735.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

James F. Avigliano, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher W. Hsieh, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a). He was sentenced on the former to a twenty-year term of imprisonment, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility, and on the latter to a concurrent term of fifteen years, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility. The judge also ordered that defendant serve a five-year period of supervised parole following his release from prison. A subsequent motion to reduce the sentence was denied.

Defendant appealed and the matter was placed on our excessive sentencing calendar. We affirmed by order entered on September 16, 2003. Docket No. A-0401-02T4. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification on March 9, 2004. 179 N.J. 371 (2004).

On December 13, 2004, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After hearing the argument of counsel, the trial judge denied that petition by way of an oral decision rendered on June 29, 2006.

Defendant has appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, and raised the following arguments for our consideration:

I. THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW SENTENCING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL WERE INEF-FECTIVE.

II. THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0225-06T4

July 25, 2007