Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-6164-10T3
04-30-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OMAR SAUNDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Maven.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 03-08-2977.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Omar Saunders appeals from the order of the trial court denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Under indictment number 03-08-2977, defendant was charged with the following: first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) (count one); second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (count two); third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count three); third-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a) and (b) (count four); third-degree hindering own prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1) (count five); third-degree hindering prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(a)(2) (count six); third-degree tampering with a witness, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a)(1) (count seven); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7 (count eight).
On July 7, 2004, a jury found defendant guilty on counts one through five and seven, and not guilty on count six. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found defendant guilty of the "certain persons" offense under count eight. On October 1, 2004, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-five years' imprisonment subject to an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Saunders, No. A-1798-04 (App. Div. February 29, 2008). The Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Saunders, 196 N.J. 461 (2008).
Defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR. Assigned counsel filed an additional brief in support of defendant's petition. On April 30, 2010, the court heard oral arguments from counsel, then determined defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 9, 2010, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's petition for PCR. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to file supplemental briefs.
In his petition for PCR, defendant asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's alleged failure to investigate and interview important witnesses and to call witnesses at trial. In addition, in his pro se brief, defendant made several additional arguments. Specifically, defendant argued: (1) trial counsel's failure to perform proper pretrial investigation of witnesses, lack of trial preparation, and failure to establish an effective defense were so egregious as to deny defendant his right to the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial; (2) appellate counsel failed to provide him with effective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial prosecutor engaged in misconduct which singularly and cumulatively deprived defendant of a fair trial; and (4) the admission of a witness's out-of-court statement to an investigator deprived defendant of his federal and state constitutional right to confrontation and constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence.
In response, the State argued defendant's PCR petition should be denied. First, the State maintained defendant's pro se claim of prosecutorial misconduct was procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-5. Second, the State submitted defendant's petition should be denied because he failed to set forth a prima facie case entitling him to relief. Finally, the State maintained that defendant's pro se claim that a witness's prior out-of-court statement was admitted in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) was without merit because defendant was afforded, at trial, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness.
Judge Richard F. Wells denied the petition in its entirety setting forth his credibility determinations, findings of fact and conclusions of law in an oral decision, followed by a written opinion issued that same date.
On appeal, defendant raises the following claims:
I. 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. Factual Introduction.
B. Since Trial Counsel's Failure to Call Certain Witnesses Possessing Information Relevant to the Defendant's Defense Materially Contributed to His Ensuing Convictions, the Trial Court Erred in Denying His Petition for Post Conviction Relief.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the issues raised in this appeal are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Wells in his comprehensive and thorough twenty-page written decision of January 14, 2011.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION