STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. I.R.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3507-09T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

I.R.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________

October 3, 2011

Submitted September 19, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Parrillo and Skillman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment

No. 02-05-0751.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Arthur J. Owens, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara B. Liebman, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7); sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(3)(a); sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(3)(b); and child abuse, in violation of N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and 9:6-3. The trial court sentenced defendant to a sixteen-year term of imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault and concurrent terms of eight years imprisonment for one of the counts of sexual assault and fifteen months for child abuse. The court merged defendant's conviction for the other count of sexual assault.

On defendant's direct appeal, we affirmed in an unreported opinion. State v. I.R., No. A-0816-03 (Dec. 27, 2005). Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Judge Moynihan, who had been the trial judge, denied defendant's petition by an oral opinion delivered on August 4, 2009.

On appeal from the order memorializing this denial, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT ONE:

THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.

POINT TWO:

THE WITHIN MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED SO THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL MAY BE CONDUCTED.

POINT THREE:

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (NOT RAISED BELOW).

We reject the arguments presented under Points I and II of defendant's brief substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Moynihan's oral opinion. We emphasize that defendant failed to present any competent evidence in support of his petition that the victim ever made a false accusation of sexual assault or abuse against any other person.

As for the argument defendant presents under Point III of his brief -- that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel assigned to handle his petition -- there is no basis in the record before us for concluding that the outcome of defendant's petition would have been different even if his assigned counsel had made the additional arguments or undertaken the additional investigation defendant urges he should have conducted.

Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.