STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EVERETT HOLLOWAY (2014)

Defendant Everett Holloway appeals the order that denied without an evidentiary hearing his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).  We affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and three related offenses that were merged when defendant was sentenced.   The details of defendant's offenses are recounted thoroughly in our opinion affirming defendant's convictions on direct appeal, State v. Holloway, No. A–0464–09 (App.Div. September 29, 2011) (slip op. at 3–9), and need not be repeated here.   In our opinion, although we affirmed defendant's convictions, we remanded for resentencing because the trial court had imposed two extended-term sentences in contravention of N.J.S.A. 2C:44–5(a)(2), which provides that “[n]ot more than one sentence for an extended term shall be imposed.”   The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification.  State v. Holloway, 210 N.J. 109 (2012).   On remand, the court resentenced defendant on the second count of aggravated sexual assault to a twenty-year custodial term, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43–7.2, to run concurrent with the life sentence the court had previously imposed on the first count of aggravated sexual assault.

The same year that the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, defendant filed a PCR petition.   He alleged in the petition that his trial attorney was ineffective because the attorney had neither reviewed discovery with him nor investigated prospective witnesses.   In an oral decision delivered from the bench on January 4, 2013, Judge Joseph L. Foster denied defendant's petition.   Defendant appealed.

Defendant presents the following argument:

THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE HIM WITH DISCOVERY AND FAILING TO INVESTIGATE PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Foster in his oral decision.   Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM