STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GILES HARRIS (2014)

Defendant Giles Harris appeals from the order of the Law Division, Criminal Part, denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition.   We affirm.

On December 6, 2006, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of third degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35–5a(1), and one count of third degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35–10a(1).   Following the jury's verdict, defendant pled guilty to an unrelated charge of third degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35–7.   After rejecting defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the jury verdict, the trial court granted the State's motion and sentenced defendant on June 1, 2007, to an aggregate extended term of ten years, with five years of parole ineligibility.

We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal, and remanded for the court to resentence defendant after imposing only one extended term.  State v. Giles Harris, Docket No. A–6509–06 (App. Div. June 19, 2009).   The trial court re-sentenced defendant accordingly on August 6, 2009.   Defendant filed this PCR petition on April 20, 2010, pro se, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.   After assigning counsel to represent defendant in the prosecution of the petition, Judge Nestor F. Guzman considered the arguments presented and denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.   Judge Guzman explained the reasons for his decision in a memorandum of opinion date April 4, 2011.

Defendant now appeals from this decision raising the following arguments:

POINT ONE

THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION ON THE STIPULATION TO THE CERTIFIED LABORARTORY REPORT CLAIM.

A. DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN STIPULATING TO THE CERTIFIED LABORATORY REPORT AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant also raises the following argument:

POINT ONE

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN BOTH “JOINTLY” IMPINGED ON DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AND DUE PROCESS RIGHT BY STIPULATING EVIDENCE WITHOUT DEFENDANT'S KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF SUCH RIGHT.

Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(2).   We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Guzman as reflected in his well-reasoned memorandum of opinion.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM