Preview:

a3576-08.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(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3576-08T43576-08T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
OTTO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted June 3, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment
No. 97-07-1075.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jennifer Barr Swift,
Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Steven J.
Harbace, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm, essentially for the
reasons set forth in a written opinion by Judge Kevin Callahan.
Defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter, amended from murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, pursuant
to a plea agreement in April 2000. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced in June 2000
to thirty years with a fifteen-year period of parole ineligibility on the robbery charge and a consecutive term of
fifteen years with a five-year period of parole ineligibility on the aggravated manslaughter charge. Defendant
appealed, arguing only that his sentence was excessive. This court affirmed his sentence. State v. Sanchez, No. A-
3219-00T4 (App. Div. February 6, 2002). His petition for certification was denied. State v. Sanchez, 174 N.J. 365
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3576-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:03:50 PM]




a3576-08.opn.html
(2002).
Defendant did not file a PCR petition until June 2008. In his petition, defendant alleges that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel in pretrial preparation, plea negotiations, in the investigation of all possible defenses
and in securing a plea agreement molded to the facts of the case. Petitioner contends that the facts warranted a
guilty plea to theft but not to robbery "as the intent element was an afterthought." He does not deny that he shot
the victim twice in the head with a .22 caliber handgun and offers no facts to explain why he failed to file this
petition on a timely basis.
Defendant's petition was denied by the Honorable Kevin Callahan, with an extensive written statement of reasons.
In this appeal, defendant raises the following issues:
POINT I
THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR A GUILTY PLEA FOR ARMED ROBBERY BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE VICTIM; TRIAL AND APPELLATE
COUNSEL NEGLECTED TO EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST THE PLEA; THE JUDGE BELOW
ERRED IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
A. TRIAL COUNSEL
B. APPELLATE COUNSEL
C. THE PCR JUDGE
POINT II
TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL NEGLECTED TO ARGUE CASE LAW AGAINST IMPOSING
A CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE; THE JUDGE BELOW ERRED IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF (NOT RAISED BELOW).
A. TRIAL COUNSEL
B. APPELLATE COUNSEL
C. THE PCR JUDGE
POINT III
THIS PCR APPLICATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS TIMELY TO AVOID FUNDAMENTAL
INJUSTICE.
We are not persuaded by any of these arguments and affirm, essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Callahan.
We agree that defendant failed to set forth a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to the
standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, l 04 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed.2d 674 (1984), and adopted
by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, l 05 N.J. 42 (l987), and that, as a result, no evidentiary hearing was required.
See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3576-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:03:50 PM]




a3576-08.opn.html
In any event, defendant's petition is time-barred. Rule 3:22-12(a) provides in pertinent part:
No . . . petition [for post conviction relief] shall be filed pursuant to this rule more than 5
years after rendition of the judgment or sentence sought to be attacked unless it
alleges facts showing that the delay beyond said time was due to defendant's
excusable neglect.
To be entitled to a relaxation of the Rule based upon excusable neglect, the petitioner must "allege[] facts
demonstrating that the delay was due to the defendant's excusable neglect" and, "[i]f the petitioner does not allege
sufficient facts, the Rule bars the claim."  State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 576 (1992). Because petitioner did not
present any facts to explain his delay, he was not entitled to a relaxation of the Rule and his petition is appropriately
time-barred.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-3576-08T4
June 23, 2010
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3576-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:03:50 PM]

Download a3576-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law