Preview:

a2980-07.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1). These charges stemmed from his commission of fellatio on D.W., a boy who was eleven years
old at the time. The State agreed to recommend a sentence not to exceed a ten-year term. Consistent with the plea
agreement, Judge Linda Baxter imposed a ten-year term subject to parole supervision for life pursuant to Megan's
Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -21. Defendant did not appeal. "> 09 EDT 2009"> Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2980-07T42980-07T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DWIGHT BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted April 1, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Rodríguez and Payne.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,
Indictment No. 97-12-3644.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Confusione,
Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A.
Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In September 1998, defendant Dwight Bell, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -21. Defendant did not appeal.
Almost six years after the date of conviction, defendant filed, pro se, an application to reduce the term of parole
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2980-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:41:06 PM]




a2980-07.opn.html
supervision. Judge Baxter denied this application because fifteen years had not elapsed from the time defendant
was placed on parole. Almost seven years after his conviction, defendant filed a first petition for post-conviction
relief (PCR). In the petition, he alleged that he was confused and unaware of the community supervision
requirement at the time of the entry of the plea, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not advising him of the
requirement.
Judge Stephen Holden denied the petition because it was time-barred and procedurally-barred. Further, Judge
Holden found that a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of trial counsel had not been established.
On appeal, defendant contends:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] RELIEF.
A. Defendant's Petition Was Not Barred.
B. Defendant Established At Least A Prima Facie Case Of Ineffective Assistance Of
Plea Counsel.
We disagree and affirm, concluding that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Moreover, we agree with Judge Holden that the petition is time-barred by operation
of Rule 3:22-12 and procedurally barred by virtue of Rule 3:22-4, grounds not raised in prior proceedings.
We also note that, if we were to reach the merits, the petition would be denied because the nature of community
supervision for life was explained to defendant at the time of the plea hearing. The judge carefully distinguished its
conditions from those of regular parole. Moreover, we agree with Judge Holden that there was no basis to limit
community supervision on the grounds of hardship.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-2980-07T4
RECORD IMPOUNDED
June 12, 2009
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2980-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:41:06 PM]




a2980-07.opn.html
0x01 graphic
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/a2980-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:41:06 PM]

Download a2980-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law