STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL WENK (07-10-1754, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2192-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL WENK,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted September 28, 2022 – Decided October 6, 2022
Before Judges Gilson and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 07-10-1754.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Debra G. Simms, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from an order denying his post-conviction relief (PCR)
petition. We affirm.
In 2008, pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the State, defendant
pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault of a minor, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-
2(c)(4). In accordance with the agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a
seven-year prison term and parole supervision for life, subject to the provisions
of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23. Defendant appealed only his sentence.
We affirmed. State v. Wenk, No. A-2665-08 (App. Div. Feb. 8, 2010).
In 2019, defendant filed pro se a PCR petition, which his appointed
counsel later supplemented. After hearing oral argument, Judge Guy P. Ryan
denied defendant's PCR petition in a nineteen-page decision and corresponding
order.
Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
POINT ONE
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
[DEFENDANT'S] PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT GRANTING AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TESTIMONY IS
NEEDED FROM PRIOR COUNSEL REGARDING
HIS FAILURE TO ADVISE [DEFENDANT] OF THE
REQUIREMENTS, PROVISIONS, AND DURATION
OF PAROLE SUPERVISION FOR LIFE.
A-2192-20
2
POINT TWO
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
[DEFENDANT'S] PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT GRANTING AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TESTIMONY IS
NEEDED FROM PRIOR COUNSEL REGARDING
HIS FAILURE TO ARGUE MITIGATING FACTORS
AND CHALLENGE AGGRAVATING FACTORS.
POINT THREE
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
[DEFENDANT'S] PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT GRANTING AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS THE FIVE-YEAR
TIME BAR SHOULD BE RELAXED DUE TO
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND/OR THE INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE.
We affirm the order denying defendant's PCR petition substantially for
the reasons set forth in Judge Ryan's comprehensive, written decision. Because
defendant failed to establish a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of
counsel, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Porter, 216
N.J. 343, 355 (2013); R. 3:22-10.
Affirmed.
A-2192-20
3