STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES DARRIAN (2011)

Defendant Charles Darrian, convicted in 1988 of murder, aggravated sexual assault, and related offenses, appeals pro se the Law Division's denial of his third petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).  We affirm.

On April 14, 1989, defendant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment subject to thirty years of parole disqualification on the murder conviction.   In addition, a consecutive sentence of ten years subject to a five-year parole disqualification was imposed on the conviction of aggravated sexual assault.   The convictions on related offenses were merged.   We sustained defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal in 1992 and certification was thereafter denied.  State v. Darrian, 255 N.J.Super.   435 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 13 (1992).

With the assistance of appointed counsel, defendant filed his first PCR petition in October 1992.   The petition was denied in March 1993, and defendant appealed.   While that appeal was pending, defendant filed a motion to compel the State to produce evidence.   Specifically, defendant sought DNA testing of semen found on the thigh of the murder victim, Santa Maria Pinkston, defendant's former girlfriend.   With the State's consent, the matter was remanded to allow the Law Division to rule on the motion to compel DNA testing.   We dismissed the appeal subject to potential reinstatement.   The Law Division granted defendant's request, and further testing of the material ruled out defendant as the source of the semen found on the victim's thigh.

Defendant subsequently sought a new trial pursuant to Rule 3:20–1 on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.   Extensive hearings in the Law Division were conducted beginning in September 1996 and concluding in March 1998.   The trial judge denied the application, finding that the semen stains were only one part of the State's considerable evidence against defendant and that the DNA testing would not have likely changed the jury's assessment of guilt.   That decision was affirmed on appeal in December 1999, and the Supreme Court denied certification.  State v. Darrian, No. A–5379–97 (App.Div. Dec. 22, 1999) (slip op. at 4–5), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 397 (2000).

Defendant next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court in March 2001.   That petition was denied on February 28, 2002.  Darrian v. Hendricks, No. 01–1372 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2002).   In July 2004, defendant filed a second petition for PCR, which was denied on January 2, 2007.   Defendant appealed that decision, which we affirmed.  State v. Darrian, A–3211–06 (App.Div. May 8, 2008).   Defendant did not seek certification from that decision.

Thereafter, defendant filed a third PCR petition, which was denied February 17, 2010.   It is the merits of this third denial of PCR which we review.

Defendant raises precisely the same issues as he did previously:

POINT I OF II

BECAUSE RESPONDENTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION AGREED THAT FRESH SEMEN FOUND ON THE MURDERED/RAPED VICTIM'S THIGH WAS LINKED TO THE CRIME, MEANS THE PROCEDURAL BARS IN QUESTION HAVE TO BE LIFTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT OF MURDERING/RAPING THE VICTIM, SINCE HIS NEW DNA RESULTS CONCLUSIVELY SHOW[ ] HE IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE FRESH SEMEN WHICH RESPONDENTS AND APPELLATE DIVISION STATED IS LINKED TO THE MURDER AND RAPE.

POINT II OF II

FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO BAR DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS AS REQUESTED BY RESPONDENTS, THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD HAVE TO RULE THAT DEFENDANT'S NEW DNA RESULTS HAVE NO RELEVANCE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS HAD PRESENTED TO THE JURY [AND] TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FABRICATED EVIDENCE THAT THE SEMEN DISCHARGED ON THE MURDERED/RAPED VICTIM'S THIGH WAS LINKED TO THE CRIME, BECAUSE THE SEMEN APPEARED FRESH, AS RECENTLY DISCHARGED WHEN [ ] FOUND ON THE VICTIM'S THIGH.   HOWEVER, FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING WOULD MEAN THE APPELLATE COURT IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESPONDENTS ABUSED THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BY PRESENTING FABRICATED EVIDENCE WICH GROSSLY UNDERMINED DEFENDANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL.   AND SUCH AN ABUSE WOULD WARRANT LIFTING OF THE PROCEDURAL BARS IN QUESTION[ ].

Once again, defendant focuses on the results of the DNA testing.   We conclude his arguments simply reiterate the same issues he has extensively litigated in prior proceedings.

As Judge Council noted in denying defendant relief, the application is grossly out of time in addition to repeating arguments previously adjudicated.   See Rule 3:22–12 and 3:22–5.

As the court further noted, there is no basis for finding a manifest injustice, the exception to application of the five-year time bar, given that defendant has exhaustively pursued these issues.   They have been extensively considered on several prior occasions both in state and federal proceedings.   The opportunity to raise these arguments has come and gone.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM