STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STANTON DRISCO, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4497-05T34497-05T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STANTON DRISCO, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant,

________________________________________________________

 

Submitted April 17, 2007 - Decided April 25, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and R.B. Coleman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County, No. 3125-11-90.

Stanton Drisco, Jr., appellant pro se.

Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Seth P. Galkin,

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the denial of his fourth petition for post-conviction relief. The underlying judgment of conviction was entered after a jury trial on February 17, 1993. For armed robbery and other offenses, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility. We affirmed the conviction in 1995 and certification was denied in the same year. In 2000, we affirmed the denial of defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief, and in subsequent years we affirmed the denial of his other petitions for post-conviction relief.

Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected defendant's fourth petition for post-conviction relief and his motion for reconsideration in letter opinions dated January 31, 2006, and March 28, 2006. Defendant appeals, offering the following arguments:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT PLEADS EXCUSABLE NEGLECT IN THE MATTER, AS THE BASIS WAS FORMED ON INFORMATION WHICH LAID OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND WAS ONLY LEARNED AFTER DEFENDANT OBTAINED TRANSCRIPTS WHICH PRIOR COUNSEL FAILED TO ORDER DURING PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS (U.S. CONST. AMEND VI).

POINT TWO

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT JUDGE COSTELLO DENIED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PRIOR TO THE START OF TRIAL, THUS, DEFENDANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM WAS WITHOUT MERIT IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI).

POINT THREE

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION BASED ON A KEY WITNESS FOR THE STATE COMMITTING PERJURY, WHICH DESTROYED DEFENDANT'S CREDIBILITY, THUS, DENYING DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF A FAIR TRIAL AS THEY ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI)

POINT FOUR

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION BASED ON HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING HIS DIRECT APPEAL WHEN APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED TO ORDER ALL THE RELEVANT TRANSCRIPTS, DENYING DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI)

POINT FIVE

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED, ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, AND THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED UNDER NEWLY DISCOVER[ED] EVIDENCE DUE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION PRECIPITATED BY ILLEGAL ACTIONS BY A ROGUE GROUP OF ELIZABETH POLICE OFFICERS KNOWN AS "THE FAMILY"

POINT SIX

THE ERRORS CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL

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

R. 2:1l-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Schultz in his well-reasoned written opinions.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4497-05T3

April 25, 2007