Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4358-12T2
10-16-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Maria I. Guerrero, Special Deputy Attorney General, Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 02-10-0369. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Maria I. Guerrero, Special Deputy Attorney General, Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Michael Bright appeals from a March 7, 2013 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Peter V. Ryan in his comprehensive written opinion issued with the order.
The background is set forth at length in Judge Ryan's opinion and need not be repeated here in the same level of detail. In 2004, defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2), first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3), and additional associated offenses, in connection with the fatal shooting of Aleka Trought and the wounding of Basiyr Powell. On October 9, 2004, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty-five years in prison, of which thirty-five years are subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirmed on defendant's direct appeal. State v. Bright, No. A-4519-04 (App. Div. Aug. 5, 2008), certif. denied, 196 N.J. 599 (2008).
On October 20, 2009, defendant filed a PCR petition claiming that his trial attorney was ineffective and raising numerous alleged pre-trial and trial errors. His assigned PCR counsel filed a brief elaborating on the eighteen issues which defendant had included in his pro se submission. In his lengthy opinion, Judge Ryan addressed and rejected each of defendant's arguments as either procedurally barred or without merit.
The PCR petition was dated October 6, 2009.
Judge Ryan found that defendant failed to explain how his trial counsel was ineffective at alleged "critical stages" of the case. The judge also found that, although defendant claimed his trial attorney failed to investigate possible alibi witnesses, defendant presented no legally competent evidence as to what the witnesses would have testified to had they been called at trial. Thus, the judge concluded that defendant had presented only "bald assertions" which did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and did not entitle defendant to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463-64 (1992); State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).
On this appeal, defendant raises the following point for our consideration:
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS, IN THAT TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, FAILED TO ADEQUATELY COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND FAILED TO PROVIDE HIM WITH TIMELY DISCOVERY.
Although defendant admits he did not provide any affidavits in support of his PCR petition, he contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on unsworn comments he made at his sentencing hearing. He also makes a general assertion that his trial attorney did not adequately communicate with him and was "tardy" in sharing discovery with him. Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION