From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cruz

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Jan 30, 2012
DOCKET NO. A-5244-09T1 (App. Div. Jan. 30, 2012)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-5244-09T1

01-30-2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE E. CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Edward J. DeFazio, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges Grall and Skillman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County,

Indictment No. 06-04-0679.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Frank M.

Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the

brief).

Edward J. DeFazio, Hudson County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor,

on the brief).
PER CURIAM

Pursuant to an agreement with the State, defendant Jose E. Cruz pled guilty to five counts of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1b, charged in a twenty-seven-count indictment. The remaining twenty-two counts were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to five concurrent twelve-year terms of imprisonment subject to periods of parole ineligibility and supervision required by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On direct appeal, defendant only challenged his sentence. We affirmed after hearing oral argument in accordance with Rule 2:9-11, and the Supreme Court denied certification, State v. Cruz, 194 N.J. 446 (2008). Defendant now appeals from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

He raises these issues:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
II. DEFENDANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO DEFENDANT.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO AFFORD DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

Having considered the arguments in light of the record, we have concluded that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Theemling in his oral decision of September 10, 2009.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Summaries of

State v. Cruz

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Jan 30, 2012
DOCKET NO. A-5244-09T1 (App. Div. Jan. 30, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Cruz

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE E. CRUZ…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jan 30, 2012

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-5244-09T1 (App. Div. Jan. 30, 2012)