STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AUEIRIO VAZQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

AUEIRIO VAZQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

October 31, 2016

Submitted October 17, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 10-05-0059.

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

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah Ross, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

During his jury trial on an indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit money laundering, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:21-25(a), and first-degree money laundering, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a), defendant negotiated a plea with the State. Defendant pled guilty to first-degree money laundering in exchange for the State's agreement to dismiss the indictment's other count and to recommend a twelve-year custodial term with no parole disqualifier. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.

Four months later, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging his counsel was ineffective for, among other reasons, the following: (1) failing to pursue a speedy trial; (2) misadvising defendant that he would be released into the Intensive Supervision Program; (3) failing to challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis given during the plea colloquy; (4) failing to properly advocate at sentencing; and, (5) failing to file a direct appeal. In a written opinion, Judge Robert J. Mega carefully considered each issue, determined defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case on any issue, and denied the petition. Defendant appealed from the memorializing order.

On appeal, defendant argues

POINT ONE

[DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

Within the context of this argument, defendant raises the five points enumerated above. Having considered his claims in light of the record and controlling law, we affirm the denial of his PCR petition, substantially for the reasons given by Judge Mega in his thorough and thoughtful written opinion. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.