STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AUBERTO EGIPCIACO (01-04-1277, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3746-16T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AUBERTO EGIPCIACO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted January 9, 2019 – Decided January 30, 2019
Before Judges Nugent and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 01-04-1277.
Auberto Egipciaco, appellant pro se.
Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Maura Murphy Sullivan,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Auberto Egipciaco, appeals from an order that denied his
second petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
In 2003, a jury found defendant guilty of committing the following crimes
during a violent home invasion: three counts of first-degree armed robbery,
N.J.S.A. 2C:15–1; third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1(b)(2);
second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18–2; two counts of endangering the
welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24–4(a); two counts of fourth-degree aggravated
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1(b)(4); and three counts of third-degree criminal
restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13–2(a). On June 24, 2003, the trial judge sentenced
defendant to an aggregate term of sixty-five years with approximately thirty
years of parole ineligibility.
We affirmed defendant's conviction on his direct appeal but remanded for
re-sentencing pursuant to State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005). State v.
Egipciaco, No. A-0827-03 (App. Div. Feb. 7, 2006) (slip op. at 19-20), certif.
denied, 188 N.J. 270 (2006). On April 28, 2006, he was re-sentenced to the
same term. We affirmed the sentence on an excessive sentence oral argument
calendar on July 24, 2007, and the Supreme Court denied certification. State v.
Egipciaco, 193 N.J. 221 (2007).
While his direct appeal was pending, defendant filed a PCR petition on
September 29, 2006. Apparently, that petition was dismissed without prejudice
and was re-filed after defendant's direct appeals had been denied. The judge
A-3746-16T1
2
who presided over defendant's trial also presided over the evidentiary hearing
on defendant's first PCR petition. The judge denied it. We affirmed State v.
Egipciaco, No. A-3812-09, (App. Div. Sept. 26, 2011), and the Supreme Court
denied certification, 210 N.J. 109 (2012).
Defendant next filed a Petition for a writ of Habeus Corpus, which was
denied. Egipciaco v. Warren, Civil Action No. 12-4718, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis
22453 (D.N.J. Feb. 25, 2015). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendant's application for a certificate of appealability. Egipciaco v. Warren,
C.A. 15-15-1772 (3rd Cir. Oct. 21, 2015). Defendant filed a Motion for Relief
from Judgment, and the District Court denied the motion. Egipciaco v. Warren,
Civil No. 12-4718, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99131 (D.N.J. Jul. 28, 2016). The
Third Circuit denied defendant's application for a certificate of appealability.
Egipciaco v. Adm'r N.J. State Prison, No. 16-3532 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2016).
Two months later, on February 8, 2017, defendant filed this "Motion to
Correct Illegal Sentence." The trial court determined the motion was defendant's
second PCR petition. In an April 3, 2017 written opinion, the trial court denied
the petition.
On appeal, defendant argues:
A-3746-16T1
3
POINT 1
THE DEFENDANT'S PERSISTENT OFFENDER
SENTENCE OF 65 YEARS WITH A 29 YEARS
PAROLE BAR IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE,
UNDULY PUNITIVE AND NOT IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED VIOLATED
THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A
JURY UNDER APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY.
POINT 2
THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE[.]
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS DUE
PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE
DESPITE EVIDENCE HIS MENTAL STATE HAD
DECLINED SINCE THE OUTSET OF THE TRIAL,
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO REEVALUATE
DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE (Not Raised Below).
POINT 3
THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR BY PERMITTING TESTIMONY FROM
JAIL HOUSE INFORMATION UNDER THE
"HEARSAY EXCEPTION["] WHICH INCULPATED
THE DEFENDANT['S] SIXTH AMENDMENT
CONFRONTATION RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
ALONG WITH HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. [sic]
THIS IS GROUND FOR MISTRIAL.
POINT 4
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE
REVERSED AS THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST
A-3746-16T1
4
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. (Not Raised
Below)
POINT 5
DEFENDANT RECEIVED A DISPARATE
SENTENCE AS COMPARED TO [CO]-
DEFENDANT'S RENDERING HIS SENTENCE AS
ILLEGAL FOR UNDERMINING FAIRNESS AND
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. MR. EGIPCIACO WAS
CHARGED WITH THE GRAVES ACT —
DEFENDANT WILLIAM WAS NOT. THE COURT
GAVE FAVORABLE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO
MR. REYES THAN EGIPCIACO, CO-DEFENDANT
SENTENCE WAS CREATING DISPARITY. [sic]
POINT 6
THE COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING
APPELLANT JAIL CREDITS. APPELLANT IS
ENTITLE[D] TO RECEIVE [H]IS FULL JAIL
CREDITS NOT GIV[EN] TO HIM DURING HIS
DETENTION UP UNTIL [H]IS SENTENCING.
We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the extensive record
and applicable legal principles and found his arguments to be without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only
that defendant's application, if construed as a second PCR petition, was
untimely, as it was not filed within one year of the date of denial of his first
petition, Rule 3:22-12 (a)(2), and falls within none of the rule's other provisions.
In any event, the challenges defendant mounts to his sentence in his first, second,
A-3746-16T1
5
and fifth points fail because we have previously considered and rejected
defendant's challenge to his sentence.
Contrary to defendant's arguments in points three and four, and as detailed
in our opinion affirming defendant's convictions on direct appeal, Egipciaco,
No. A-0827-03 (slip op. at 3-6), the State's abundant evidence amply supported
the jury's verdict and rendered harmless any error concerning the witness
defendant now labels "a jailhouse informant."
Finally, contrary to defendant's argument, the original judgment of
conviction includes 175 days of jail credit.
Affirmed.
A-3746-16T1
6