STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALONZO G. BROWN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0976-16T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALONZO G. BROWN,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________

              Submitted February 26, 2018 – Decided March 15, 2018

              Before Judges Sabatino and Rose.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Warren County, Indictment No.
              05-12-0440.

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

              Richard T. Burke, Warren County Prosecutor,
              attorney for respondent (Kelly Anne Shelton,
              Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Alonzo Brown appeals from an August 30, 2016 order

dismissing       his   petition     for   post-conviction       relief    ("PCR")

following an evidentiary hearing.              Defendant claims his former
plea counsel was ineffective by allegedly promising that his

sentence would not exceed twenty years, and by failing to submit

character witness letters, and his medical records to the court

in mitigation of his sentence.         We affirm substantially for the

reasons expressed by Judge John H. Pursel in his thorough written

opinion.   We add the following brief remarks.

     On July 25, 2006, defendant pled guilty before Judge Pursel

to aggravated manslaughter, attempted murder and weapons offenses

for the shooting death of his former girlfriend, and maiming of

her boyfriend.      On December 1, 2006, defendant was sentenced in

accordance   with   a   negotiated    plea   agreement   to   an   aggregate

thirty-year custodial sentence with an eighty-five percent period

of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act,


N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

     On September 16, 2008, we denied defendant's appeal, which

was limited to the sentence imposed.          State v. Brown, A-6426-06

(App. Div. Sept. 16, 2008).          On December 15, 2008, the Supreme

Court denied certification.     State v. Brown, 
197 N.J. 259 (2008).

     On November 29, 2011, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition.

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant and, on June 11,

2013, the trial court granted a plenary hearing.              Judge Pursel

conducted a two-day hearing in February and March 2016. Defendant



                                      2                              A-0976-16T1
was the sole witness to testify at the hearing.             The judge also

reviewed the video recording of defendant's plea hearing.                    The

judge denied PCR on August 30, 2016.          This appeal followed.

     On appeal, defendant argues:

           POINT I

           DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
           COUNSEL ENTITLING HIM TO [PCR] AND AN
           EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

           (A) Trial counsel was ineffective for having
           misinformed defendant as to his penal
           exposure thereby causing the defendant to
           enter a guilty plea which was not knowing and
           voluntary in nature.

           POINT II

           COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO
           MITIGATE   DEFENDANT'S    SENTENCE   BY   NOT
           PROVIDING ALL [OF] DEFENDANT'S CHARACTER
           LETTERS AND MEDICAL RECORDS FOR CONSIDERATION
           BY THE TRIAL COURT AT SENTENCING.

           POINT III

           DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA
           BECAUSE THE NATURE AND STRENG[T]H OF HIS
           CLAIM OUTWEIGH THE STATE'S INTEREST IN
           PRESERVING THE PLEA.

     Our   review    of   a   PCR   claim   after   a   court   has   held     an

evidentiary   hearing     "is   necessarily   deferential       to   [the]   PCR

court's factual findings based on its review of live witness

testimony."   State v. Nash, 
212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013); see also

State v. O'Donnell, 
435 N.J. Super. 351, 373 (App. Div. 2014) ("If


                                      3                                 A-0976-16T1
a court has conducted an evidentiary hearing on a petition for

PCR, we necessarily defer to the trial court's factual findings.").

Where an evidentiary hearing has been held, we should not disturb

"'the   PCR   court's   findings   that    are   supported   by   sufficient

credible evidence in the record.'"        State v. Pierre, 
223 N.J. 560,

576 (2015) (citations omitted).          We review any legal conclusions

of the trial court de novo.        Nash, 
212 N.J. at 540-41; State v.

Harris, 
181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004).

     In Judge Pursel's well-reasoned written opinion, he soundly

recognized defendant's claims lacked merit.           Having reviewed the

video recording of defendant's plea, and considered his testimony

at the PCR hearing, the judge concluded "[d]efendant understood

the terms of the plea deal and that trial counsel could not make

any guarantees regarding the possibility of a reduced sentence."

     Further, although defendant claims his plea counsel failed

to submit six to eight character letters to the sentencing court

on his behalf, Judge Pursel found it was undisputed that plea

counsel had submitted twenty such other letters for the court's

consideration.     In any event, the judge found the additional

character letters "would [not] have influenced the result of the

proceeding."




                                     4                               A-0976-16T1
     Finally, defendant admitted the medical reports he claimed

in his PCR petition were not submitted to the trial court were,

in fact, attached to his pre-sentence report.

     For these reasons, and pursuant to our deferential standard

of   review,   we   conclude   Judge   Pursel   correctly   dismissed

defendant's PCR petition.      As such, defendant's arguments are

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in this

written opinion.    R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

     Affirmed.




                                  5                           A-0976-16T1