STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RASHAUN BARKLEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4205-16T2


STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RASHAUN BARKLEY,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

              Submitted February 26, 2018 – Decided March 6, 2018

              Before Judges Sabatino and Rose.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No.
              93-04-1390.

              Rashaun Barkley, appellant pro se.

              Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
              Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J.
              Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
              Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Rashaun Barkley, who was convicted of felony murder

and other offenses at his 1994 trial, appeals from the denial of
his fifth petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR").1       Defendant

maintains   he   received   ineffective   assistance   from   his    trial

counsel and PCR counsel.     His present arguments mainly concern an

alleged failure by his counsel to advise him of a plea offer.

Judge Martin G. Cronin rendered a comprehensive written decision.

     On appeal, defendant argues:

            POINT I

            THE ORDER DENYING PCR SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
            THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE PCR JUDGE FOR AN
            EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE THE PETITIONER
            [HAS] MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL UNDER THE
            STRICKLAND/FRITZ TEST.

            POINT II

            THE PCR JUDGE['S] RULING DENYING PCR VIOLATED
            DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
            OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH
            AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

            POINT III

            FIRST [PCR] COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
            FAILURE TO LEARN ABOUT ALL PLEAS OFFERED BY
            THE STATE AND RAISING THE ISSUE ON [PCR].
            (Not raised below)

     In a reply brief, defendant raises the following point:

            POINT I

            ONCE AGAIN THE [STATE IS] ATTEMPTING TO
            CONFUSE THE FACTS BY SAYING THAT THERE WAS


1
 Although captioned as a "Motion for a New Trial," the trial court
correctly treated defendant's application as a PCR claim.

                                   2                                A-4205-16T2
           [NOT] ANY PLEA OFFER MADE THEN SAYING
           [DEFENDANT] WAS AWARE OF THE PLEA AND THEN
           REJECTING IT "VERBALLY."

    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 Cronin in

his thorough and well-reasoned written decision.

     Affirmed.




                                3                         A-4205-16T2