Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0794-10T1
01-04-2012
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN E. REARDON, Defendant-Appellant.
John E. Reardon, appellant pro se. Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jason Magid, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Payne and Hayden.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 90-08-2331.
John E. Reardon, appellant pro se.
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jason Magid, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
In June 1990, defendant John E. Reardon was discovered by the Runnemede Police lying in the back of his station wagon in a lot adjoining his apartment building, apparently attempting to commit suicide through inhalation of carbon monoxide from the station wagon's exhaust system. At the time, the police were aware that defendant had purchased two pounds of black powder on the previous day. A subsequent search of defendant's apartment disclosed an assembled package bomb, parts for a second bomb and gunpowder.
Defendant was charged with third-degree possession of a destructive device, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3a (Count One), second-degree possession of explosive material with intent to use it against another, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4b (Count Two), and second-degree possession of a destructive device with the intent to use it against another, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4c (Count Three). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of all charges. He was sentenced on February 13, 1992 on Count Three to eight years in custody with three years of parole ineligibility. The remaining convictions were merged. Defendant appealed, raising a total of thirty-eight arguments. We affirmed the convictions in an unreported decision in which we found that none of the contentions advanced by and on behalf of defendant had any merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). See State v. Reardon, No. A-3254-91 (App. Div. April 28, 1995). Defendant has been released from custody.
On October 1, 2009, more than seventeen years after he was sentenced, defendant filed a motion that was deemed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Following review of defendant's petition as well as the State's response, by order dated August 20, 2010, Judge Anthony M. Pugliese denied relief, determining that defendant's petition was untimely.
Defendant has appealed, raising the following arguments:
Question 1
There is no time limit to file a P.C.R. motion for Lack of Jurisdiction and Judge Pugliese was legally or constitutionally or plainly in error in dismissing the Appellant's P.C.R. as being time barred.
Question 2
The appellant was and is absolutely entitled to relief from void proceedings and Judge Pugliese abused his discretion in denying said relief.
Question 3
That because of lawsuits pending against Judges Steinberg and Greene at or before their involvement in the appellant's criminal matter below, and for other reasons based on their conduct, the Judges lost all jurisdiction to continue to sit on appellant's criminal matter.
Question 4
That based upon the Common Law of England and the rights of the people thereto, Judge Greene was without jurisdiction to enter many of the orders and finding he did in appellant's criminal matter.
Question 5
This court lost jurisdiction to deny my appeal back in 1992 by way of Freytag v. Comm. Of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868, 896 and Old Wayne Mut. Loan Ass. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 and State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35, 52.
Following our thorough review of defendant's briefs in support of his appeal and the State's opposition thereto, we affirm the denial of PCR, finding defendant's petition to be untimely, Rule 3:22-12(a)(1). Moreover, we find many of the arguments contained therein to be barred because they were previously raised on appeal and adjudicated at that time, Rule 3:22-5, and the remaining arguments to lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.