STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FUQUAN KHALIF (91-01-0437, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3668-14T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FUQUAN KHALIF,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Argued telephonically June 1, 2017 –
Decided June 28, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Manahan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment
No. 91-01-0437.
Fuquan Khalif, appellant, argued the cause pro
se.
Arielle E. Katz, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent (Christopher
S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Daniel
I. Bornstein, Deputy Attorney General, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Fuquan Khalif appeals from an order denying a motion
to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, defendant raises the
following arguments:
POINT I
PCR COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN [THROUGHOUT]
THE ENTIRE APPEAL PROCESS[] HE NEVER WAS
AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH ANY OF THE
[DEFENDANT'S] DEFENSE.
POINT II
THE PCR COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT
PROCEDURALLY BARRED [DEFENDANT'S] MOTION TO
CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE [] SIMPLY BECAUSE
[DEFENDANT] ATTACKED OTHER PARTS OF HIS
SENTENCE THAT WERE "ILLEGAL"[] IN VIOLATION
OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
Defendant further raises the following points in his reply
brief:
POINT I
THE STATE'S CONTENTION TO BAR [DEFENDANT]
UNDER R. 3:22-5 WOULD BE TO FURTHER VIOLATE
HIS XIV AMENDEMENT AND ABDICATE THE COURT'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
POINT II
THE SENTENCING COURT COMMITTED "PLAIN ERROR"
WHEN IT DID NOT PRODUCE THE DEFENDANT FOR AN
ORDERED REMAND IN 1995 ALSO IN VIOLATION OF
R. 3:16.
POINT III
IN REPLY TO POINT II OF THE STATE'S BRIEF ON
[INEFFECTIVE] ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT IV
THE SENTENCING COURT COMMITTED "PLAIN ERROR"
WHEN IT VIOLATE[D] THE STANDING LAW OF EX POST
FACTO, BY (1) HAVING A "HEARING"[;] (2) BY
2 A-3668-14T3
SENTENCING [DEFENDANT] TO ANY EXTENDED TERMS
UNDER A NEW STATUTE.
We have considered the arguments raised by defendant in light
of the record, the extensive procedural history, including prior
challenges to his sentence, and the written decision dated February
25, 2015, of Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli, and conclude the arguments
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
This is defendant's fifth appeal stemming from his
conviction. Suffice it to state, on May 8, 1992, defendant was
sentenced to life imprisonment plus forty years subject to a fifty-
year parole disqualifier as a result of guilty verdicts rendered
by a jury on charges of first-degree attempted murder, second-
degree burglary, second-degree aggravated assault, second-degree
possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and murder. His
convictions were affirmed, State v. Khalif, No. A-0553-92 (App.
Div. Jan. 23, 1995), and certification was denied April 27, 1995.
State v. Khalif, 140 N.J. 327 (1995). Defendant subsequently
filed five unsuccessful petitions for PCR. The Law Division denied
each petition for PCR, and we affirmed.1
1
On November 12, 2014, defendant filed the subject motion to
correct an illegal sentence, which he alternatively referenced as
a PCR.
3 A-3668-14T3
Affirmed.
4 A-3668-14T3