Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendant Corderrol Priester appeals from a May 2, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). On this appeal, defendant raises the following point of argument: THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO CONSULT ADEQUATELY WITH HIM. We affirm, substantially for the reasons st
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendant Corderrol Priester appeals from a May 2, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). On this appeal, defendant raises the following point of argument: THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO CONSULT ADEQUATELY WITH HIM. We affirm, substantially for the reasons sta..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Corderrol Priester appeals from a May 2, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).
On this appeal, defendant raises the following point of argument:
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO CONSULT ADEQUATELY WITH HIM.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Joseph P. Donohue in his oral statement of reasons issued on May 2, 2014. We add the following comments.
The trial evidence was discussed at length in our opinion affirming defendant's conviction and sentence on his direct appeal, and need not be repeated here. State v. Priester, No. A-6116-08 (App. Div. July 18, 2012). In connection with a brutal home invasion robbery, defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery, and multiple related offenses. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty years in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. In our opinion on defendant's direct appeal, we considered and rejected all of his below-listed appellate arguments:
POINT ONE
THE JUDGE'S CHARGE ON ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY WAS AWKWARDLY SEPARATED FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES, INADEQUATELY TAILORED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND FAILED TO PROPERLY CONVEY THAT AN ACCOMPLICE COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF A LESSER OFFENSE THAN THE PRINCIPAL. (Not Raised Below.)
POINT TWO
TESTIMONY THAT CRAWFORD SPOTTED A PERSON THE STREET WHOM HE WAS CERTAIN WAS THE GUNMAN DID NOT QUALIFY AS A "PRIOR IDENTIFICATION" WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THAT THE MAN CRAWFORD SPOTTED WAS PRIESTER. THUS, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY AS PROOF THAT PRIESTER WAS THE GUNMAN OR AS CORROBORATION FOR CRAWFORD'S IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION. (Not Raised Below.)
POINT THREE
ADMISSION OF THE OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATIONS OF PRIESTER MADE BY CRAWFORD AND BRANTLEY, WHICH WERE IMPERMISSIBLY SUGGESTIVE AND INSUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE, VIOLATED PRIESTER'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW. (Partially Raised Below.)
POINT FOUR
THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE IN-COURT AND OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATIONS WERE MISLEADING, AS THEY FOCUSED ON FACTORS THAT WERE IRRELEVANT AND FAILED TO MENTION FACTORS CRITICAL TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE. (Not Raised Below.)
POINT FIVE
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION TO IMPOSE FOUR CONSECUTIVE NERA SENTENCES CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Defendant then filed a PCR petition asserting in vague and general terms that his trial counsel had been ineffective. On his behalf, his PCR attorney contended that although defendant's former trial counsel met with defendant before the trial, "the visits weren't substantive and . . . didn't delve into the details of his case." Noting that defendant's former trial counsel had vigorously conducted the defense, Judge Donohue found that defendant's petition did not satisfy either prong of the Strickland1 test. We agree with Judge Donohue. "Bald assertions" do not entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).
Affirmed.
