Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2944-15T4
03-12-2018
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARLOS ALVES, Defendant-Appellant.
Carlos Alves, appellant pro se. Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (LeeAnn Cunningham, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 Fuentes and Koblitz. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 99-10-03250. Carlos Alves, appellant pro se. Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (LeeAnn Cunningham, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Carlos Alves was tried before a jury and convicted of murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1). On March 16, 2001, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of thirty years imprisonment without parole. On direct appeal, this court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State v. Alves, No. A-4355-00 (App. Div. 2003). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Alves, 178 N.J. 455 (2004).
On November 17, 2015, defendant filed a pro se motion in the Law Division, Criminal Part, seeking reversal of his conviction. Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli denied defendant's motion in a letter-opinion dated December 24, 2015. As Judge Cifelli explained, defendant's motion is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5 because the claims of alleged legal errors committed by the trial judge were previously considered and rejected by this court on direct appeal.
Defendant now appeals from Judge Cifelli's decision raising the following arguments:
POINT I
THE COURT CONFUSED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS INVESTIGATION STATEMENT WTH DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR INTERPRETERS TRANSLITERATORS AND TRANSLATORS.
POINT II
THE COURT ERRED IN BARRING THE FACT THAT THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR PROVIDE THE JURY HIS UNPROVEN STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS AS FACT IN HIS SUMMATION.
POINT III
THE COURT ERRED IN CATEGOUZING [SIC] DEFENDANT'S PETITION AS A MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE.
The State argues defendant's appeal should be dismissed because Judge Cifelli did not enter an order denying defendant's motion. See R. 2:2-3(a). Although the State's argument is technically correct, we have opted to consider Judge Cifelli's December 24, 2015 letter-opinion as the functional equivalent of a final order under these circumstances. Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Cifelli.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION