STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PIETRO J. PARISI, JR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PIETRO J. PARISI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

November 3, 2016

Submitted June 2, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Indictment Nos. 96-03-0144, 02-09-0554, 03-01-0105, 03-01-0106, 08-10-0869, 09-01-0073, and 10-08-0630.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Sean F. Dalton, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joseph H. Enos, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Pietro J. Parisi, Jr., appeals from the July 24, 2014 order of the Law Division, Criminal Part denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. Defendant raises the following arguments in support of this appeal.

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WITH REGARD TO THE 2010 CONVICTIONS.

POINT II

THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE GUILTY PLEA WITH REGARD TO THE 2010 CONVICTIONS; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED. (Not Raised Below)

POINT III

THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO ADVICE HE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE 2007 PLEAS, AND BUT FOR THE ERROR, THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, ENTITLING HIM TO POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE.

POINT IV

APPLYING MEGAN'S LAW AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE TO A STRICT LIABILITY STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Defendant raises the following issue in his pro se supplemental brief

POINT I

THE STATE[']S . . . INDEX TO PLAINTIFF'S APPENDIX REFERS TO ITEMS THAT ARE NOT PART OF MY CASE.

We reject these arguments and affirm. This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). First, defendant must demonstrate that defense counsel's performance was deficient. Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. Second, he must show there exists "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698. Mindful of these standards, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Walter L. Marshall in his oral opinion delivered from the bench on July 24, 2014.

We will not recite defendant's lengthy procedural history. Instead, we incorporate by reference the detailed recitation of defendant's involvement with the criminal justice system contained in our opinion affirming the October 26, 2009 order of the Law Division, Criminal Part, which denied: (1) defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to third degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a, entered on a March 26, 1996; and (2) his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of second degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, based on having had sexual relations with two children under the age of sixteen, and one count of fourth degree violation of community supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, entered on January 17, 2003. State v. Pietro J. Parisi, Docket No. A-4901-09 (App. Div. Mar. 12, 2013).

We also conclude Judge Marshall correctly denied defendant's application for an evidentiary hearing because defendant did not make out a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311-312 (2014); R. 3:22-10. "Bald assertions" unsupported by competent evidence are not legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance. Ibid.

Affirmed.