Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2960-13T2
05-13-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANGELA D. PIZZARELLI, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monica do Outeiro, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 06-11-2533. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monica do Outeiro, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
In 2009, defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated manslaughter, armed robbery and other offenses and sentenced by the trial judge to a forty-five-year prison term, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. In her direct appeal, defendant asserted errors in the jury charge and the imposition of an excessive sentence. We rejected all her arguments and affirmed by way of an unpublished opinion, State v. Pizzarelli, No. A-1242-09 (App. Div. Mar. 1, 2012); the Supreme Court thereafter denied defendant's petition for certification, 211 N.J. 275 (2012).
Defendant now appeals the denial of a post-conviction relief petition filed on November 29, 2012. She argues the judge should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on her claims that defense counsel: failed to adequately inform her of the advantages and disadvantages of testifying at trial; failed to seek a cross-racial identification jury instruction or vigorously pursue a misidentification defense; and failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation. We find no merit in these arguments.
As Judge Anthony J. Mellaci, Jr., who also presided over the trial, recognized in his oral decision of November 21, 2013, the jury was fully instructed on cross-racial identifications. Moreover, the judge noted that defendant testified at trial that she was present at the scene of the crimes. Accordingly, in considering the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test, the judge properly concluded that a claim of misidentification would have "had no bearing on the outcome of the trial." The judge also rejected the remainder of defendant's unspecific and unsupported allegations of attorney ineffectiveness.
We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Mellaci in his cogent and well-reasoned oral decision.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987).