STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW T. PENDER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3095-16T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDREW T. PENDER, a/k/a
DREW PENDER,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

              Submitted April 17, 2018 – Decided April 30, 2018

              Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment
              No. 09-01-0018.

              Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
              for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated
              Counsel, on the brief).

              Jennifer    Webb-McRae,   Cumberland    County
              Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen
              C. Sayer, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
              on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Andrew T. Pender appeals from a January 23, 2017

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief.                 We affirm.
      Based on overwhelming evidence of his guilt, defendant was

convicted of first-degree murder, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), and

associated offenses.         He was sentenced to sixty-eight years in

prison, sixty years of which was subject to the No Early Release

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

      We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, but

remanded to correct a typographical error in the judgment of

conviction.      State v. Pender, No. A-3344-10 (App. Div. March 3,

2014), certif. denied, 
220 N.J. 39 (2014).            In his direct appeal,

defendant did not challenge the denial of his mid-trial request

for self-representation.        However, in addressing another issue,

our opinion noted defendant's request to represent himself - which

the   judge    denied   as   untimely   -   and    defendant's   "pattern    of

disruptive and disrespectful behavior" during the trial.             Pender,

slip op. at 16-19.

      Defendant raised the self-representation issue, along with

several others, in a PCR petition.                Judge Robert G. Malestein

rejected the self-representation PCR claim in a comprehensive

written opinion issued with the January 23, 2017 order denying the

petition.      On this appeal, defendant raises the same claim in the

following point:

              DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE REVERSED
              BECAUSE HE WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
              OF SELF-REPRESENTATION.

                                        2                             A-3095-16T1
    We find no merit in that contention, and we affirm for the

reasons stated in Judge Malestein's cogent opinion.   No further

discussion is warranted here.   R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

    Affirmed.




                                3                        A-3095-16T1