Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3668-14T3
06-28-2017
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FUQUAN KHALIF, Defendant-Appellant.
Fuquan Khalif, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Arielle E. Katz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Daniel I. Bornstein, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Alvarez and Manahan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 91-01-0437. Fuquan Khalif, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Arielle E. Katz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Daniel I. Bornstein, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Fuquan Khalif appeals from an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
PCR COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN [THROUGHOUT] THE ENTIRE APPEAL PROCESS[] HE NEVER WAS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH ANY OF THE [DEFENDANT'S] DEFENSE.
POINT II
THE PCR COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT PROCEDURALLY BARRED [DEFENDANT'S] MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE [] SIMPLY BECAUSE [DEFENDANT] ATTACKED OTHER PARTS OF HIS SENTENCE THAT WERE "ILLEGAL"[] IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
Defendant further raises the following points in his reply brief:
POINT I
THE STATE'S CONTENTION TO BAR [DEFENDANT] UNDER R. 3:22-5 WOULD BE TO FURTHER VIOLATE HIS XIV AMENDEMENT AND ABDICATE THE COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
POINT II
THE SENTENCING COURT COMMITTED "PLAIN ERROR" WHEN IT DID NOT PRODUCE THE DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDERED REMAND IN 1995 ALSO IN VIOLATION OF R. 3:16.
POINT III
IN REPLY TO POINT II OF THE STATE'S BRIEF ON [INEFFECTIVE] ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT IV
THE SENTENCING COURT COMMITTED "PLAIN ERROR" WHEN IT VIOLATE[D] THE STANDING LAW OF EX POST FACTO, BY (1) HAVING A "HEARING"[;] (2) BY
SENTENCING [DEFENDANT] TO ANY EXTENDED TERMS UNDER A NEW STATUTE.
We have considered the arguments raised by defendant in light of the record, the extensive procedural history, including prior challenges to his sentence, and the written decision dated February 25, 2015, of Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli, and conclude the arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
This is defendant's fifth appeal stemming from his conviction. Suffice it to state, on May 8, 1992, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus forty years subject to a fifty-year parole disqualifier as a result of guilty verdicts rendered by a jury on charges of first-degree attempted murder, second-degree burglary, second-degree aggravated assault, second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and murder. His convictions were affirmed, State v. Khalif, No. A-0553-92 (App. Div. Jan. 23, 1995), and certification was denied April 27, 1995. State v. Khalif, 140 N.J. 327 (1995). Defendant subsequently filed five unsuccessful petitions for PCR. The Law Division denied each petition for PCR, and we affirmed.
On November 12, 2014, defendant filed the subject motion to correct an illegal sentence, which he alternatively referenced as a PCR. --------
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION