STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER SANTIAGO (93-05-1916, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2730-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PETER SANTIAGO,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Submitted October 21, 2019 – Decided November 12, 2019

Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 93-05-1916.

Peter Santiago, appellant pro se.

Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
 Defendant appeals from a February 8, 2019 order denying his fifth petition

for post-conviction relief (PCR). Judge Mayra V. Tarantino entered the order,

which also denied defendant's application for assigned counsel, and rendered a

written opinion. After concluding that defendant lacked good cause for the

assignment of counsel, the judge denied his petition relying on Rules 3:22-12,

3:22-4, and 3:22-5.

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
[DEFENDANT'S] PCR PETITION WAS
PRECLUDED BY RULE 3:22-4 AND RULE 3:22-
12(a)[(2)](B), AND ERRED IN NOT
ADJUDICATING THE PETITION AS A PETITION
FOR A NEW TRIAL.

POINT II

THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
[DEFENDANT] FAILED TO ESTABLISH
ENTITLEMENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF
COUNSEL UNDER RULE 3:22-6(b).

POINT III

THE COURT ERRED AND CAUSED A
FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN
CONCLUDING THAT [DEFENDANT'S] CLAIMED
PCR ENTITLEMENT WAS PRECLUDED BY RULE
3:22-5.

A-2730-18T4
2
We conclude that defendant's contentions lack sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).1 We affirm substantially for

the reasons set forth by Judge Tarantino's written opinion. We add the following

brief remarks.

The PCR judge correctly concluded that defendant failed to satisfy

multiple rules. He did not show good cause for the appointment of counsel under

Rule 3:22-6(b) (stating "good cause exists only when the court finds that a

substantial issue of fact or law requires assignment of counsel and when a second

or subsequent petition alleges on its face a basis to preclude dismissal under

[Rule] 3:22-4"). And his petition is untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)

(establishing deadlines for the filing of second or subsequent PCR petitions).

Consequently, under Rule 3:22-4 (listing reasons to bar second or subsequent

petitions for PCR), and Rule 3:22-5 (entitled "Bar of Ground Expressly

Adjudicated"), the PCR judge correctly denied defendant's petition.

Affirmed.

1
We reach this conclusion after considering defendant's reply brief dated
October 4, 2019.
A-2730-18T4
3