Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5881-12T2
10-16-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHNNIE PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy P. Scharff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 03-06-02278. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy P. Scharff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by FUENTS, P.J.A.D.
Defendant Johnnie Parker appeals from the order of the Criminal Part denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.
This is the second time this case has been before us. In State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 284 (2012), the Supreme Court reversed our previous decision affirming the trial court's denial of defendant's PCR petition. The Court held the trial court erred when it denied defendant's petition without affording his assigned counsel the opportunity to present oral argument. Ibid. In reaching this decision, the Court made clear it was not determining that there was "substantive merit" in defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ibid.
Although the Supreme Court described in detail the procedural history of defendant's case, id. at 273-77, we will briefly summarize the key events that led to defendant's conviction. Defendant was seventeen in December 2002 when he was originally charged as a juvenile with murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); second degree conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; third degree possession of a weapon (knife) for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon (knife), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d); third degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1); fourth degree tampering with evidence, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1); and third degree endangering an injured victim, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2. The Family Part thereafter granted the State's motion to remove the case to the Law Division Criminal Part to try defendant as an adult pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.
On June 18, 2003, a Camden County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 03-06-02278, charging defendant with the aforementioned charges. On October 6, 2003, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the State through which he pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4. Through this plea agreement, the State dismissed all of the remaining charges in the indictment and agreed to recommend the court sentence defendant to a term of twenty-five years subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility, and a five-year term of parole supervision, as required under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On November 21, 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant did not file a direct appeal challenging the propriety of any of the proceedings that led to his sentence. On October 31, 2007, defendant filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The arguments defendant raised in this PCR petition were described verbatim in our earlier unpublished opinion. State v. Parker, No. A-5270-08 (App. Div. January 25, 2011) (slip op. 5-7). We incorporate them here by reference.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's remand, the PCR petition came before Judge Irvin J. Snyder for oral argument on April 12, 2013. After hearing oral argument, Judge Snyder denied the petition in an order filed on April 16, 2013. Judge Snyder explained the basis for his ruling in a memorandum of opinion attached to the order.
Defendant now appeals from this decision raising the following arguments:
POINT ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
A. Inadequate Investigation by Trial Counsel.
1. The Duress Defense.
2. Defendant's Cooperation.
B. Counsel's Performance at Sentencing.
C. The Miranda Issue.
We reject these arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Snyder in his well-written and comprehensive memorandum of opinion dated April 16, 2013. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION