STATEOF NEW JERSEY v. LEON FITZPATRICK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2372-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LEON FITZPATRICK,

        Defendant-Appellant.


              Submitted January 29, 2018 – Decided February 22, 2018

              Before Judges Ostrer and Rose.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
              96-02-0165.

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

              Christopher     J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
              Prosecutor,    attorney for respondent (Mary R.
              Juliano, of    counsel and on the brief; Vanessa
              L. Coleman,    Legal Assistant, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Leon Fitzpatrick appeals from a December 16, 2016

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief.                 Defendant

maintains      he   received     ineffective     assistance     from   his    plea
counsel, and should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.    Judge

David F. Bauman entered the order and rendered a comprehensive

oral decision.

     On appeal, defendant argues:

           POINT I
           THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S
           DECISION TO ENFORCE THE FIVE-YEAR TIME BAR.

           POINT II

           THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S
           DECISION TO DENY DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR
           POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND REMAND THE MATTER
           FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

           POINT III

           THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S
           DECISION TO DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
           WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.

     We conclude that defendant's arguments are without sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.         R. 2:11-

3(e)(2).   We affirm for the reasons set forth by Judge Bauman in

his thorough and well-reasoned oral decision.

     Affirmed.




                                2                             A-2372-16T3