Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2701-13T2
04-28-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM SUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 04-07-0698. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, 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 appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.
Defendant was charged in 2004 and convicted by a jury in 2006 of first-degree murder and other offenses. The aggregate sentence imposed was a seventy-year prison term with a parole ineligibility period of sixty years.
Defendant filed an appeal. We affirmed, State v. Suarez, No. A-6038-05 (App. Div. Mar. 31, 2008), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, 203 N.J. 439 (2010).
In August 2010, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, and counsel was appointed on his behalf. After hearing argument, Judge William A. Daniel denied the PCR petition for reasons expressed in his August 28, 2013 written opinion.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED LEGAL ARGUMENT. (Not Raised Below)We find insufficient merit in defendant's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Daniel in his well-reasoned and thoughtful written opinion. We add only a brief comment regarding Point I.
POINT II: THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE HIS CASE.
POINT III: THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE PCR COURT. (Not Raised Below)
Defendant urges us to remand this matter as he was not afforded oral argument by the PCR judge on his petition. The order denying the PCR petition states that the parties waived oral argument; defendant does not reference any error in the order nor deny that representation. The judge's written decision does not address the issue.
The Supreme Court in State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (2012) instructed judges to approach each PCR petition with a view in favor of oral argument; it did not hold that every defendant is entitled to present oral argument as a matter of law. If oral argument was not waived in this matter, we do not disagree that the better practice would have been to allow oral argument or give a clear statement of reasons as to why it was not necessary. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the failures to do so here did not constitute an abuse of discretion that warrants reversal. In consideration of the lack of merit to defendant's arguments, we fail to see how the purposes underlying post-conviction review would have been furthered by oral argument.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION