Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. STANFORD ARMSTEAD, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant Stanford Armstead appeals from a May 9, 2012 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm on the basis of the thorough, well-reasoned opinion of Judge Darrell M. Fineman. After an initial dead-locked jury, a second jury convicted defendant of third-degree endangering the welfare of a twelve-year-old child. N.J.S.A. 2C:24–4(a). He was acquitted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault. N.J.S.A. 2C:14–2(a)(1). Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender, N.J.S.A. 2C:44–3(a), to an extended term of eight years in prison with a four-year term of parole ineligibility. We affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Armstead, No. A–4142–08 (App.Div. December 7, 2010). We incorporate herein the facts as outlined in that opinion. Id. slip op. at 3–4. Only the victim and a police officer testified at trial. Defendant claimed in his PCR petition that, although trial counsel cross-examined the victim extensively, counsel was ineffective in not developing all of the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
On appeal, defendant raises the following issue:
POINT I: THE PCR COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY NOT GRANTING THE DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
A deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance occurs when: (1) an attorney provides inadequate representation and (2) that deficient performance causes the defendant prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 57–58 (1987). An evidentiary hearing is only necessary if defendant has made a prima facie demonstration of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462–63 (1992). A defendant must set forth more than “bald assertions.” State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.Super. 154, 170 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).
We affirm for the reasons expressed in Judge Fineman's thorough opinion of May 9, 2012.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: DOCKET NO. A–5842–11T3
Decided: December 23, 2013
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)