STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND O'KEEFE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3568-04T43568-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND O'KEEFE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

 

Submitted January 18, 2007 - Decided May 23, 2007

Before Judges Cuff and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Union County,

Indictment No. 99-01-0093.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Adam W. Toraya,

Designated Counsel, of counsel and on

the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Raymond O'Keefe appeals from the denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2; and third-degree criminal restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2. The court granted the State's motion to sentence defendant as a persistent offender and imposed an aggregate term of thirty-five years, with fifteen years of parole ineligibility.

On direct appeal, defendant challenged his conviction alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed an extended term. We rejected these arguments and affirmed both the conviction and sentence. State v. O'Keefe, No. A-2111-99 (App. Div. Feb. 8, 2002) (slip op. at 7). Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. O'Keefe, 172 N.J. 180 (2002).

On May 14, 2004, defendant filed this PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to investigate the possibility of an alibi witness. After conducting an evidentiary hearing pursuant to State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992), in which the court considered testimony from defendant, his brother and defendant's trial counsel, Judge Donohue denied the PCR petition. Judge Donohue explained his decision in a comprehensive, well-reasoned memorandum of opinion dated December 10, 2004. Rather than restate the facts of the case, we incorporate by reference the factual recitation included in our unpublished opinion cited ante.

Defendant now appeals raising the following the arguments:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL BY THE U.S. CONST., AMENDS, VI, XIV,; N.J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10.

A. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTED WITH DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY RESULTING IN THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE A WADE MOTION AND THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED INEFFECTIVE [SIC] ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

C. CUMULATIVE ERRORS BY COUNSEL AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THE DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL. (Partially raised by Appellate Counsel who reserved the issue for post conviction review.)

Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Donohue in his memorandum of opinion.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3568-04T4

May 23, 2007