Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5936-12T1
02-10-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TROY COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Amanda K. Dalton, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 04-05-00472. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Amanda K. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Troy Cooper appeals from an April 29, 2013 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) and denying his application to withdraw his guilty plea.
On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument:
MR. COOPER IS ENTITLED TO ONE YEAR OF JAIL CREDITS PURSUANT TO RULE 3:21-8.After defendant filed his appellate brief, the trial court entered an amended judgment of conviction (JOC) on March 24, 2015, awarding defendant an additional year of jail credit. Accordingly, that issue is moot.
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MR. COOPER'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
The amended JOC resulted from our 2008 decision of defendant's direct appeal on an Excessive Sentencing calendar. We remanded the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of clarifying the amount of jail credit to which defendant was entitled. State v. Cooper, No. A-006628-05 (App. Div. July 30, 2008). For reasons not explained on this record, the jail credit issue was apparently not resolved until March 2015.
Having reviewed the record, we affirm the denial of defendant's PCR petition substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Robert J. Mega in his comprehensive sixteen-page written opinion issued on April 29, 2013. We add these comments.
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder and associated offenses, in connection with the shooting death of a store owner. In January 2006, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his confession, defendant pled guilty to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and first- degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4. Consistent with the plea agreement, he was sentenced on April 21, 2006, to an aggregate term of twenty-five years in prison subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 (NERA). We affirmed the sentence on his direct appeal, except for a remand to reconsider his entitlement to jail credits.
Defendant filed a PCR petition in 2009, but for reasons not explained on this record, he withdrew it, and the court accordingly filed a memorializing order dismissing the petition on April 19, 2010. Defendant filed a new petition in March 2012, alleging that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance in pre-trial proceedings and coerced him into pleading guilty, and that his plea was not voluntary. Defendant also contended that his appellate counsel was ineffective.
In his written opinion, Judge Mega found that the petition was time-barred under Rule 3:22-12(a), but he nonetheless also considered and rejected the petition on the merits. We need not repeat his analysis here. We note, however, that defendant's primary argument supporting his claim to withdraw the guilty plea was that he was misadvised that he would be entitled to an extra year of jail credit and would not have pled guilty had he known the credits would be denied. That claim is now moot, because defendant has been granted the extra year of jail credit, and his trial attorney's advice in that regard has been proven correct.
Defendant also claims that his trial attorney should have further investigated certain telephone records and should have interviewed additional witnesses. However, he presented no legally competent evidence that any additional telephone records existed, apart from those the State produced, or that there were any witnesses with personal knowledge helpful to the defense. "[B]ald assertions" are insufficient to support a prima facie case of ineffective assistance, and hence the trial court properly decided the petition without an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999); see State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-64 (1992).
After reading the transcript of the Miranda hearing, we also agree with Judge Mega that an appeal from the denial of the suppression motion would have been unsuccessful. Hence, defendant's appellate counsel was not ineffective in limiting the appeal to the sentencing issue.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). --------
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION