STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JACK FOX

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5233-05T45233-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JACK FOX,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

 

Submitted May 8, 2007 - Decided May 18, 2007

Before Judges Skillman and Holston, Jr.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Cape May County, Indictment No. 03-01-0040.

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

Robert L. Taylor, Cape May County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (J. Vincent Molitor, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for attempted murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2); aggravated assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); and criminal restraint, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2. Pursuant to a plea bargain under which the State agreed to dismiss the other counts of the indictment as well as related disorderly persons charges and to recommend that defendant be sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment subject to the 85% period of parole ineligibility mandated by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, defendant pled guilty to the aggravated assault charge. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea bargain to a six-year term of imprisonment, subject to the 85% parole disqualifier.

On an appeal heard on an excess sentence calendar, see R. 2:9-11, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State v. Fox, No. A-6078-03T4 (Dec. 14, 2004). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 183 N.J. 587 (2005).

Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant claimed in his petition that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel conceded certain aggravating sentencing factors and failed to argue certain mitigating factors at sentencing and his appellate counsel failed to argue all applicable mitigating factors at the oral argument before this court. Judge Alvarez denied the petition in an oral opinion delivered on May 17, 2006.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

I. DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.

II. DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL.

III. DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS POST-CONVICTION RELIEF CLAIMS.

We affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Alvarez's oral opinion. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5233-05T4

May 18, 2007