Preview:

a5824-07.opn.html

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(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO.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-5824-07T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COLEEN ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________ Submitted October 27, 2009 - Decided March 1, 2010 Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, Indictment No. 91-05-0273-I. Coleen Alexander, appellant pro se. Thomas S. Ferguson, Warren County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Dit Mosco, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Coleen Alexander appeals from the order of the Law Division Criminal Part denying her post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. court denied her This is defendant's fifth PCR petition. other four previous petitions finding The no

grounds for relief.

The facts leading to defendant's conviction

are stated in detail in her co-defendant's case, State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (1994). appeal is reflected The procedural history preceding this in our unpublished opinion denying

State v. Alexander, No. A-2528defendant's third PCR petition. 02 (App. Div. Apr. 12, 2004). In this fifth PCR petition, defendant raises the following arguments. POINT ONE CHANGE IN THE CRIMINAL CODE N.J.S.A. AS OF 12/17/07 IS IN DIRECT RELATION TO THE DEFENDANT'S ONLY REASON FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PLEA OFFER AND RESULTING CRIMINAL CONVICTION SINCE THE DEFENDANT AUTOMATICALLY FACED THE DEATH PENALTY AT ANY/ALL JUNCTURES OF ANY RELIEF GRANTED. POINT TWO FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5824-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:10:17 PM]

a5824-07.opn.html

OF THE DISADVANTAGES OF ACCEPTING A PLEA AND/OR THE ADVANTAGES OF TESTIFYING AT TRIAL AS RELATED TO THE EMINENT ISSUE OF DEATH PENALTY APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT CRIMINAL MATTER. POINT THREE CASE DECISION AS STATED IN STATE V. INGRAM, [APPELLATE DIVISION (PER CURIAM) 27 PAGES 14-2-8 126 DECIDED 08/01/07] ON THE INSTRUCTION OF ISSUES OF ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY NOT ADHEREING (SIC) TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF BIELKIEWICZ, AND THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSING THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL. Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant We affirm

R. 2:11-3(e)(2). discussion in a written opinion.

A-5824-07T4 2 substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Pursel in his memorandum of opinion attached to the order dated June 3, 2008, denying this PCR petition. Affirmed.

A-5824-07T4 3

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

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5824-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:10:17 PM]



Download a5824-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law