STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE C

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________

June 8, 2015

Submitted May 19, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Accurso and Manahan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Indictment Nos. 02-06-0251 and 02-06-0252.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Carolyn V. Bostic, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Francis A. Koch, Sussex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Shaina Brenner, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

In 2003, defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of second-degree sexual assault. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year prison term, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA). Defendant filed a direct appeal, raising numerous arguments. We affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded for resentencing. State v. Jose C., No. A-2146-04 (App. Div. Nov. 20, 2006). Defendant was resentenced to a ten-year prison term, subject to NERA. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Defendant did not appeal this decision.

In August 2012, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition. After a non-evidentiary hearing, Judge N. Peter Conforti denied the petition in an oral opinion. On appeal defendant argues

POINT I

the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing where the defendant established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

point ii

the pcr court erred by not holding a hearing on the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

point iii

the pcr court erred by holding that the defendant failed to establish the excusable neglect exception to the five year limitations period set forth in r.3:22-12(a).

point iv

the pcr court erred to the extent that it held that the defendant's arguments are procedurally barred by r.3:22-5.

After our examination of the record, we are satisfied the arguments raised by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Conforti in his thorough oral decision.

Affirmed.