Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5190-12T2
04-02-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRUCE BLANCO REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Andrew J. Shaw, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kimberly L. Donnelly, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Accurso and Manahan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 06-07-0691. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Andrew J. Shaw, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kimberly L. Donnelly, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant, Bruce Blanco Reyes, appeals from the February 6, 2013 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). After a careful review of the record, we affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive oral decision of Judge Frederic R. McDaniel. We add only the following.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT HIS CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WOULD ULTIMATELY SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
A. Trial counsel was ineffective by failing to conduct any investigation and consult with the defendant prior to trial.
B. Trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the state's improper comments during summation.
C. Cumulative errors by trial counsel amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of a fair trial.
D. The PCR Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's claims.
POINT II
A NEW SENTENCING OR EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S SECOND-DEGREE ROBBERY SENTENCE BECAUSE THE DISPARITY BETWEEN IT AND THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE EQUALLY CULPABLE CO-DEFENDANT COLORADO RENDERS THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE INVALID.
Defendant did not raise the issue of sentence disparity with the PCR judge. Therefore, we decline to consider an issue not presented to the trial court when the opportunity was available. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012); Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).
Even if we were to consider the issue on appeal, there has been no showing of disparity, i.e., his co-defendant was identical or substantially similar regarding sentencing criteria, that would "invalidate an otherwise lawful sentence." State v. Roach, 146 N.J. 208, 232 (1996).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION