Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4035-12T2
06-04-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN PABLO ORITZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michele C. Buckley, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Keith E. Hoffman, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 07-11-01427. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michele C. Buckley, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Keith E. Hoffman, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Juan Pablo Ortiz was tried before a jury in November 2009 and convicted of third degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1), first degree possession of cocaine in a quantity of five ounces or more, with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and b(1), and third degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a. On February 3, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of twelve years, with six years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal. State v. Ortiz, No. A-3441-09, slip op. (App. Div. Sept. 9, 2011).
On April 3, 2012, defendant filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. By order dated April 25, 2012, the vicinage's Presiding Judge of the Criminal Part assigned the Office of the Public Defender to represent defendant in the prosecution of the petition in accordance with Rule 3:22-6(a). PCR counsel thereafter filed a formal brief arguing defendant was entitled to PCR because his trial counsel failed to challenge the legality of his arrest based on a lack of probable cause, failed to prevent the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence, and failed to preserve his right to confront the witnesses against him.
The matter came before the PCR judge on January 8, 2013. After considering the arguments of counsel, the PCR judge denied defendant's petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The judge explained the basis for his decision in a memorandum of opinion dated January 9, 2013. Defendant now appeals the order denying his petition raising the following arguments:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED MR. ORTIZ'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, WHERE MR. ORTIZ HAD ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT HIS CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WOULD SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
A. The Officers Did Not Have An Articulable and Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity to Justify an Investigatory Stop of Mr. Ortiz.
B. The Police Did Not Have Probable Cause to Search the Minivan and Arrest Mr. Ortiz.
We incorporate by reference the facts we described in our unpublished opinion. Ortiz, supra, slip op. at 3-17. Against these facts, defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm the order denying defendant's PCR petition substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Raymond A. Reddin in his memorandum of opinion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION