STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JASMINE HAMPTON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0882-05T40882-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JASMINE HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted May 9, 2007 - Decided May 23, 2007

Before Judges Parker and Yannotti.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 03-02-00098-A.

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

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jasmine Hampton appeals from an order entered by Judge Frederick P. DeVesa on September 13, 2005, which denied defendant's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

On February 19, 2003, defendant pled guilty to first-degree robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and she was sentenced on February 27, 2003 to thirteen years of incarceration, with a period of parole ineligibility as prescribed by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The judge ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to a sentence that defendant was then serving. Defendant appealed and we affirmed the sentence. State v. Hampton, No. A-4838-02T4 (App. Div. September 24, 2003). Defendant filed a petition for certification, which was denied by the Supreme Court. State v. Hampton, 179 N.J. 372 (2004). Thereafter, defendant moved in the trial court to amend her sentence to remove the order requiring that it be served consecutively to her other sentence. The motion was denied by order entered on April 7, 2004.

On October 12, 2004, defendant filed a petition for PCR. Judge DeVesa heard the matter on September 6, 2005, and placed his decision on the record. The judge noted that defendant had alleged thirteen or fourteen flaws in her conviction or sentence. The judge concluded that, with the exception of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petition was barred by R. 3:22-4 because the issues had been raised or should have been raised on appeal. The judge added that defendant had not presented any factual basis for her claims. The judge concluded that there was no merit in the petition and entered an order denying PCR. This appeal followed.

In her initial brief, defendant raised the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE DEFENDANT RECEIVED THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON HER PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

POINT II

PURSUANT TO STATE v. WEBSTER, [ 187 N.J. 254 (2006)], THE CONTENTIONS IN DEFENDANT'S PRO SE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS IF SET FORTH IN FULL HEREIN.

Defendant has filed a supplemental brief in which she asserts that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel, because her attorney failed to: appeal certain adverse issues; advise her of the penal consequences of her plea; and challenge the imposition of a consecutive sentence. Defendant also argues that the judge erred in concluding that her petition was procedurally barred. Defendant contends that her conviction and sentence should be set aside or, in the alternative, she should be granted an evidentiary hearing on her claims.

We have carefully considered the record in light of the arguments advanced by defendant and are convinced that the appeal is entirely without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge DeVesa in his decision on the record on September 6, 2005. We add the following brief comments.

Judge DeVesa correctly found that defendant had not presented sufficient facts to establish that she was denied the ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the standards enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), which have been adopted by our Supreme Court in interpreting our State Constitution. State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 57-58 (1987). In addition, because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of denial of the effective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not required on her claims. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992).

Defendant also argues that she was denied the effective assistance of PCR counsel because counsel failed to file a supplemental brief in support of her PCR petition. However, defendant has not identified the additional facts or legal arguments that should have been raised by PCR counsel. Thus, defendant has not shown that had PCR counsel filed a brief in the trial court, "the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698.

Affirmed.

 

Defendant is also known as Shakira Lewis, Jazirah Lawrence, Jazirah Lawerance, Jazmine Hampton, Fatima Hampton, and "Jazz."

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-0882-05T4

May 23, 2007