Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2016
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendant was charged in a 2006 indictment with one count of third-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. Before any further proceedings occurred, defendant was sentenced by a Tennessee federal judge to a six-year prison term on an unrelated matter. He was returned to New Jersey in 2008 pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15, and, after numerous proceedings concerni
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendant was charged in a 2006 indictment with one count of third-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. Before any further proceedings occurred, defendant was sentenced by a Tennessee federal judge to a six-year prison term on an unrelated matter. He was returned to New Jersey in 2008 pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15, and, after numerous proceedings concernin..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged in a 2006 indictment with one count of third-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. Before any further proceedings occurred, defendant was sentenced by a Tennessee federal judge to a six-year prison term on an unrelated matter. He was returned to New Jersey in 2008 pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15, and, after numerous proceedings concerning defendant's representation as well as his competency to stand trial, a judge ordered defendant's return to federal custody in 2009. Defendant completed his federal prison sentence in 2011 and was again returned to New Jersey.
When he next appeared before the trial judge, defendant asserted he was a "sovereign" and the court lacked jurisdiction over him. After further efforts to determine his competency — as well as repeated attempts, between October 2011 and October 2012, to determine whether defendant was desirous of representing himself or willing to cooperate with an attorney designated by the Public Defender — the court determined defendant was not incompetent. In addition, the court found defendant was indigent but also unwilling to cooperate with appointed counsel; defendant was deemed to be representing himself and stand-by counsel was appointed.
In April 2013, after further discussion at the outset of the trial about defendant's "sovereignty" and his representation of himself, stand-by counsel conducted the matter on behalf of defendant throughout all stages of the trial. Defendant was convicted as charged.
Defendant was also represented by counsel at his June 10, 2013 sentencing hearing; he also spoke on his own behalf. The judge sentenced defendant to a four-year prison term, subject to an eighteen-month period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant appeals,1 arguing:
I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY DECLARING HIM COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COMPETENCY HEARING.
II. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL BY DECIDING THAT DEFENDANT WAS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT ENGAGING IN THE INQUIRY REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANT HAD KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THEFT BY FAILING TO MAKE THE PROPER DISPOSITION WAS PLAIN ERROR.
V. THE PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER COMMENTS DURING HIS SUMMATION CONSTITUTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.
VI. DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO MAKE RESTITUTION WITHOUT A HEARING AS TO ABILITY TO PAY.
VII. THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS.
After a careful review of the record, we find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
