State v. Santos

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 92-02-0328. Roberto Santos, appellant pro se. Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Defendant Roberto Santos appeals the denial of his fourth post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, raising the following arguments.

POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS GROUNDS, ARGUMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

A. The prevailing Legal principles Regarding Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Evidentiary Hearings And Petitions For Post Conviction Relief.

POINT II
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THUS RENDERING DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE ILLEGAL. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS A MISTAKE OF LAW, THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BASED ON HIS PRIOR CONVICTION RECORD WAS ONLY A "MANDATORY MINIMUM" SENTENCE UNDER THE GRAVES ACT, PLACING APPELLANT ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY DUE TO A PAST DUE EXPIRED SENTENCE, APPELLANT MOVES BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE (Partially Raised Below)
POINT III
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF, IN PART, ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, HAVING THE PETITION SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO RULE 3:22-12(a)(2)(B); Rule 3:22-4(b) et seq.; WHICH REQUIRES REVERSAL WITH INSTRUCTIONS OR/AND REMAND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING BE HELD ON THE MERITS AND EXHIBITS OF RECORD (not raised below)

We reject these arguments and affirm. Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). In the interest of completeness, we note defendant was convicted in 1995 of murder and weapons offenses. He was sentenced on March 27, 1995, to life imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum term of thirty years of parole ineligibility. The murder occurred on September 11, 1991; defendant was indicted in February 1992. He was a fugitive for some months before he was arrested in Puerto Rico and returned to New Jersey for trial.

This court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, State v. Santos, Docket No. A-5023-94 (App. Div. October 16, 1996), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certification, State v. Santos, 147 N.J. 578 (1997), as well as his motion for reconsideration, State v. Santos, 149 N.J. 35 (1997). The trial court denied his first PCR petition in 1999 after an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed the trial court's decision but remanded for DNA testing. State v. Santos, Docket No. A-4509-98 (App. Div. September 26, 2000). Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification from our decision. State v. Santos, 167 N.J. 87 (2001). Defendant's second PCR petition was denied by the trial court in 2006, and we once again we affirmed that decision. State v. Santos, Docket No. A-3884-02 (App. Div. November 29, 2006).

Defendant filed his third PCR petition on July 8, 2009, challenging the finding of aggravating and mitigating factors under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b) at the time of his sentencing in March 1995. The trial court denied this petition without an evidentiary hearing by order and written opinion on January 11, 2010. Here, as the motion court concluded, defendant's fourth PCR petition is procedurally barred under Rules 3:22-4, Rule 3:22-5, and Rule 3:22-12. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the comprehensive written decision of Judge John A. Young, Jr., dated April 2, 2014.

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION