Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5048-12T3
09-29-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN ROBINSON, a/k/a MUATA ABEID, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Gaetano T. Gregory, Acting Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Gregory S. Mullens, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Alvarez and Waugh. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 00-05-1008. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Gaetano T. Gregory, Acting Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Gregory S. Mullens, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant John Robinson appeals the Law Division's September 27, 2012 order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
In 2001, Robinson was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, two counts of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a), and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration for thirty-five years, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility, all consecutive to the term he was then serving. He appealed. In March 2003, we affirmed the convictions, but remanded for resentencing to a seventeen-and-one-half-year period of parole ineligibility. The Supreme Court denied certification.
After the resentencing, Robinson appealed, arguing that he was denied the right of allocution. In 2008, we rejected that argument, but remanded for resentencing in light of State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005). Robinson received the same sentence, and again appealed. In 2010, we affirmed, but remanded for correction of the judgment of conviction concerning gap time. The Supreme Court denied certification.
Robinson filed his PCR petition in April 2011. It was supplemented by appointed counsel. Robinson alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Oral argument was held in September 2012. On November 26, 2012, the PCR judge issued a written opinion explaining her reasons for denying relief and dismissing the petition. The implementing order was entered on the same day. This appeal followed.
Robinson raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF, IN PART, ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS PURSUANT TO RULE 3:22-12.
POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF SINCE HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND PETITIONS FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.
B. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION WHICH EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY.
POINT III: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF SINCE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM APPELLATE COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF APPELLATE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE ON APPEAL RELATING TO THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION WHICH EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY.
POINT IV: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION, IN PART, UPON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS PURSUANT TO RULE 3:22-4.
Having reviewed the arguments raised on appeal in light of the record before us and the applicable law, we find them to be without merit and not warranting discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Consequently, we affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Sheila A. Venable's thorough written opinion, which addressed the underlying merits of Robinson's claims as well as the procedural issues.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office. CLERK OF APPELLATE DIVIDION