Preview:

a1859-09.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version (NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1859-09T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

BERNARD MILLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________ June 17, 2011 Submitted: June 2, 2011 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Fisher.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1859-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:35 PM]

a1859-09.opn.html

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 01-09-3648.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (J. Stewart Borrow, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Luanh L. Lloyd, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Bernard Mills appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He is serving an eighteen-year term of imprisonment subject to a No Early Release Act 85% period of parole ineligibility following his plea to aggravated manslaughter. The victim was his wife. On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments: POINT I DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL.
1

A. PETITIONER DID NOT PLACE AN ADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS ON THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA AND HIS ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING THE PLEA TO GO THROUGH.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT OBTAINING AN EXPERT REPORT AS TO THE EFFECTS OF DRUGS THE PETITIONER WAS TAKING PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.

C. CUMULATIVE ERRORS BY COUNSEL AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

POINT II THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THERE WAS AN INSUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS ELICITED FROM THE PETITIONER TO SUPPORT HIS GUILTY PLEA.

POINT III PURSUANT TO STATE V. WEBSTER, THE CONTENTIONS IN DEFENDANT'S
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1859-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:35 PM]

a1859-09.opn.html

PRO SE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED HEREIN ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS IF SET FORTH IN FULL HEREIN.

We have examined the record in light of the arguments presented on appeal and conclude that each argument raised by defendant is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:113(e)(2). We add the following brief comments. As to defendant's contention that the factual basis was inadequate to support his plea to aggravated manslaughter, we observe that this is an issue that could have been raised during his initial appeal. As such, the judge could have but did not invoke the procedural bar for those matters that could have been raised on direct appeal. R. 3:22-4. The judge, however, addressed the merits of this claim, as do we. Notably, defendant testified at the plea proceeding that he was at home when his wife returned from grocery shopping, and they got into an argument. The next thing he recalled was a knock on the door. According to defendant, "I went to the door and it was the security guard and he came in. I remember he pushed me to the side of the couch. When he came back he said I was under arrest for homicide." Defendant testified that he did not recall that there was blood on him, but did not disagree and, in fact, insinuated that there was blood throughout the apartment. He acknowledged that there was no one else in the apartment, that he harmed his wife, and did not contest that he inflicted the multiple wounds recited in the autopsy report and displayed in the autopsy photographs. In short, there was an adequate factual basis elicited to satisfy the requirement that defendant did commit the offense to which he pled guilty. R. 3:9-2; State v. Barboza, 113 N.J. 360, 422 (1989). In addition, the record also demonstrates that defense counsel obtained a psychiatric evaluation and that the psychiatrist reported that defendant was unable to "form a knowing or purposeful intent" to support the offense of murder with which he had been charged. Clearly, this report formed the basis for the agreement between the State and defendant to plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter, an offense requiring only that defendant "recklessly causes death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a(1). Affirmed.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1859-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:35 PM]

a1859-09.opn.html

1 N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1859-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:35 PM]



Download a1859-09.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law