 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Madan1/28/2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 21, 2003
Defendant Pradeep Madan was indicted for the October 4, 1996 stabbing murder of Frederick Smith. The indictment in one count charged a knowing or purposeful murder, including murder by infliction of serious bodily injury. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1),(2). The indictment in other counts charged fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and third-degree escape.
Defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated manslaughter and escape. The State's sentencing recommendation was twenty years with a seven-year parole disqualification for manslaughter and a concurrent five-year sentence for escape. The State was free to argue that both sentences should run consecutively to a New York State sentence defendant was serving for attempted robbery.
On the day of sentencing, the trial court rejected defendant's plea agreement. A few days later, following another discussion about the propriety of defendant's plea, the court issued a one-page"memorandum" to counsel setting forth its reasons for rejecting the plea agreement.
The following month, defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty of all charges in the indictment except third degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with thirty years parole disqualification for murder, and a consecutive five-year term for escape was also imposed. The conviction for unlawfully possessing a weapon was merged into the murder conviction. On direct appeal we affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction. State v. Madan, No. A-7069-98T4 (App. Div. November 17, 2000). Significantly, no issue was raised as to the trial court's rejection of the plea agreement. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, State v. Madan, 167 N.J. 632 (2001).
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied following oral argument. No evidentiary hearing was provided.
Defendant appeals the denial of post-conviction relief and raises the following issues:
POINT I
THE ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED SINCE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-COUNSEL CLAIM.
(A) TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR TRIAL AND TO CONSULT HIS CLIENT WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE, RESULTED IN TRIAL COUNSEL MAKING A CATASTROPHICALLY UNFULFILLED PROMISE TO THE JURY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WOULD TESTIFY DURING TRIAL, AND RESULTED IN THE JURY NOT HEARING EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE.
(B) TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR TRIAL AND TO CONSULT HIS CLIENT REGARDING DECISIONS WHICH WERE MADE WITH RESPECT TO CONCEDING GUILT TO LESSOR INCLUDED CHARGES, THEREBY ADMITTING GUILT TO MANSLAUGHTER WITHOUT THE CLIENT'S APPROVAL AND HAVING ADVISED THE CLIENT THAT HE WOULD BE"ACQUITTED" OF THE CHARGES WITHOUT TESTIFYING.
POINT II
TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OR PRESENT EVIDENCE CONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANT'S DEFENSE WAS NOT UNASSAILABLE AS A STRATEGY DECISION.
POINT III
DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE IMPROPER REJECTION OF HIS NEGOTIATED PLEA BY THE TRIAL COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL.
(A) THE POST-CONVICTION COURT ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED TO
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Jersey DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|