Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0722-14T4
04-27-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAURICE L. INMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brian D. Gillet, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment Nos. 09-02-0264, 09-02-0266 and 09-02-0283. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brian D. Gillet, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a July 17, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
On September 21, 2008, an officer from the Sayreville Police Department received a dispatch informing him of an armed robbery at a nearby hotel. The dispatcher described the suspect as a heavyset black male wearing a blue shirt with a flower design. The officer responded immediately. Upon reaching the hotel, the officer saw a taxi approaching him and leaving the area where the hotel was located. The officer observed defendant, who matched the description provided by the dispatcher, through the windshield and windows of the taxi cab. The officer stopped the taxi and ordered defendant to exit the vehicle with his hands up. Although defendant did not comply at first, defendant eventually exited the taxi, albeit without raising his hands. Several other officers had arrived at this time, and they attempted to handcuff defendant. Defendant ran away into a wooded area, throwing cash and paper from his person as he did so. Police eventually found defendant in the wooded area, where a search later revealed a gun that defendant had been carrying.
Defendant was charged with several counts relating to the robbery, including attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); second-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). Defendant moved to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied on June 10, 2010. Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State, and pled guilty to first-degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b). On July 26, 2010, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate twelve years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress on February 9, 2011. We affirmed the trial judge's decision on October 26, 2012. State v. Inman, No. A-2846-10 (App. Div. October 26, 2012) (slip op. at 8). Defendant subsequently filed a petition for PCR. The trial judge heard argument on July 17, 2014 and denied defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing because the claims had been previously litigated, and were thus barred from being re-litigated during a hearing for PCR. R. 3:22-5. This appeal followed.
Defendant asks us to consider the following points on appeal:
POINT I:
THE DEFENDANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL CLAIM WAS NOT RAISED ON
DIRECT APPEAL AND HENCE THE RE-LITIGATION PROCEDURAL BAR IS INAPPLICABLE.
POINT II:
THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1, PAR. 10 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED.
We review the legal conclusions of the PCR court de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419, cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145, 125 S. Ct. 2973, 162 L. Ed. 2d 898 (2004). We give deference to a trial judge's findings of fact as long as those facts are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 576 (2015).
Defendant claims his appellate counsel erred by failing to dispute the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction while arguing his appeal. Defendant asserts that the facts underlying the officer's stop of the taxi could not have given rise to reasonable suspicion because the officer could not have seen him through the taxi's tinted windows, despite the trial judge's findings to the contrary. Defendant asserts that his claim has not been previously litigated because the claim here is on appellate counsel's deficiencies, not the underlying facts themselves, and that this petition is accordingly not procedurally barred. We disagree.
We initially note that "[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground for relief is conclusive whether made in the proceedings resulting in the conviction or in any post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to this rule or prior to the adoption thereof, or in any appeal taken from such proceedings." R. 3:22-5. Defendant's claim herein has already been decided. In our previous opinion, we concluded that "the trial judge's finding that the police had sufficient grounds to make an investigatory stop is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Inman, supra, slip op. at 6. We also stated that "the police were justified in making a brief stop to inquire in order to confirm or allay their suspicion." Id. at 7. Despite defendant's claims to the contrary, that appellate counsel failed to dispute the facts giving rise to the stop, we have already considered the facts and adjudicated both their support in the record and their sufficiency in forming the basis for an investigative stop. Ibid.
Defendant's remaining arguments lack 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