NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0419-15T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Submitted August 30, 2017 – Decided September 7, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 10-
01-0087.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (William Welaj, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Kimberly L. Donnelly,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant James Baker appeals from the denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree eluding,
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b). The sentencing court imposed an aggregate
sentence of eight years, subject to a four-year period of parole
ineligibility.
Defendant appealed and we affirmed his conviction and
sentence in an unpublished opinion. State v. Baker, No. A-3943-
11 (App. Div. August 22, 2014).1 Defendant did not petition the
Supreme Court for certification. The facts underlying defendant's
conviction are set forth in our opinion and need not be repeated
here.
Defendant filed a "verified" PCR petition on September 12,
2014, that did not state any facts upon which defendant relied.
In his brief, defendant argued his constitutional right to a fair
trial was violated because of the prosecutor's "knowing use of
perjured testimony" against him and by his trial counsel's
ineffective assistance. He claimed his attorney failed to
1
We remanded the matter for recalculation of jail credits. Id.
at 45.
2 A-0419-15T4
interpose objections, properly cross examine witnesses and file
"a motion for a Franks[2] hearing."
A brief was submitted on behalf of defendant in March 2015.
In this brief, defendant argued trial counsel "failed to properly
investigate and prepare pre-trial through sentencing and induced
the defendant into foregoing a plea" and going to trial. Defendant
also contended that he established a prima facie claim for PCR and
was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.3
Judge Regina Caulfield considered counsels' oral arguments
on June 1, 2015, and entered an order denying defendant's petition
after placing on the record a comprehensive oral decision setting
forth her findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judge
carefully reviewed the applicable law and defendant's contentions,
and found that his arguments had no evidentiary support, stating
that all defendant's allegations were "b[a]ld assertions."4
2
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d
667 (1978).
3
Neither defendant nor his attorney submitted an amended
verified petition, affidavit, or certification setting forth any
facts relating to defendant's arguments as required by Rule 3:22-
10(c).
4
See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.)
("a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that he was
denied the effective assistance of counsel"), certif. denied, 162
N.J. 199 (1999).
3 A-0419-15T4
In a brief filed on his behalf, defendant presents the
following issue for our consideration in his appeal:
THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO RECEIVE
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM
TRIAL COUNSEL SINCE, AS A RESULT OF
COUNSEL'S ASSURANCE THAT HE WOULD BE
EXONERATED AT TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT
REJECTED A PLEA RECOMMENDATION
PRESENTED BY THE STATE REGARDING
SEVERAL OUTSTANDING CASES AND
INSTEAD PROCEEDED TO TRIAL,
SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVING A SENTENCE
SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THAT
EMBODIED IN THE PLEA OFFER, WHICH
WARRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
Defendant filed a supplemental pro se brief in which he
presents the following additional arguments:
POINT I
[DEFENDANT]'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED WITH
THE KNOWING USE OF PERJURED
TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.
POINT II
[DEFENDANT] WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED
UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.
We are not persuaded by any of these arguments and find that
they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for
the reasons stated by Judge Caulfield in her thorough decision.
Affirmed.
4 A-0419-15T4