A Morristown Superior Court judge denied a request for a post-conviction relief hearing by a West Orange NJ woman who had been convicted of stalking.
In 2007, Karen Golding entered a Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) program after being accused of stalking the girlfriend of Union Democratic Assemblyman Joseph Cryan.
As a result of an incident in which Golding had allegedly trespassed in Cryan’s vehicle, Golding was charged with burglary and stalking.
Although the burglary charges were ultimately dismissed, the stalking charges remained. Eventually, Golding was allowed to enter a PTI program for the stalking charges. However, Golding’s admission into the PTI program came against the recommendation of the probation director.
In 2009, Golding was dismissed from the PTI program. This came into play in 2012 when Golding’s attorneys filed an appeal to have her conviction overturned and her sentence vacated. Both requests were denied.
Recently, Golding’s new legal representation filed a motion for a post-conviction relief hearing. Golding’s new attorneys argued that her former legal counsel was insufficient.
Post-conviction relief motions in New Jersey are addressed by Rule 3:22-2 in the NJ criminal code. The rule provides the grounds upon which a post-conviction relief motion can be established.
In this case, the superior court judge rejected the motion for a post-conviction relief hearing on the grounds that Golding’s previous attorneys had sufficiently represented her, falling “well within the guidelines of competent counsel.”
To learn more about this case, access the NJ.com article entitled “Judge Denies Woman’s Bid for Post-Conviction Relief in Stalking of Assemblyman’s Girlfriend.“