Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0481-14T4
04-21-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTOINE ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Janet A. Allegro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Robin A. Hamett, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Sabatino and Accurso. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Accusation No. 12-01-0144. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Janet A. Allegro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Robin A. Hamett, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Antoine Adams appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing. Because the trial judge correctly determined the evidence insufficient to sustain defendant's burden, we affirm.
Although this matter was not tried, the parties' submissions reflect the following facts the State would have presented through its evidence. Defendant's uncle by marriage called the police on August 10, 2011, claiming defendant pulled a gun and threatened him in the course of an argument. When the police arrived, defendant was gone. The victim recounted he was chatting with his mother-in-law, defendant's grandmother, at her home, when defendant came in and started arguing over certain small courtesies defendant's grandmother was showing the victim. Defendant asked the victim to step outside. When the victim did so, defendant pulled out a gun and threatened him harm. The victim stated he was very frightened and retreated inside.
When the victim discussed the incident with his mother-in-law and said he was going to call the police, she responded that she never saw defendant with a gun. The victim claimed he tried to explain to her that she had not seen the gun because defendant did not want her to see it, which was why defendant had asked the victim to step outside. Defendant's grandmother, however, kept repeating, "I didn't see nothing." The victim told all of this to the police in a recorded statement provided to defendant in discovery.
Following issuance of a warrant charging defendant with disorderly persons offenses of terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b; unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b; and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a, defendant waived indictment and pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement to one count of an accusation charging him with third-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3a. The judge sentenced him to two years' probation conditioned on 364 days in the Camden County Correctional Facility. Defendant did not appeal.
Instead, three years later, defendant filed a petition and an amended petition for post-conviction relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, defendant claimed his trial counsel failed to investigate a potentially exculpatory witness, namely his grandmother, and her claim that the victim told her after the incident that he had dropped the charges. Defendant also claimed his counsel coerced him into accepting the plea agreement and sought to withdraw his guilty plea.
At the request of the parties, the court heard the matter on the papers and issued a written opinion denying the petition on the basis that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie claim for relief. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-64 (1992). The judge noted defendant told the judge taking his plea that he had reviewed the discovery supplied in the case, which included the information that his grandmother said she never saw him with a gun or heard him threaten the victim. Accordingly, the court rejected defendant's claim that he would not have pled guilty had he known his grandmother believed there was no gun and he had not threatened the victim, because defendant was already aware of this information at the time he entered his plea. The court deemed the grandmother's statement that the victim dropped the charges as irrelevant, as the State could proceed on the basis of the victim's taped statement, whether or not the victim agreed to testify. See State v. Gross, 121 N.J. 1 (1990).
The court further noted defendant had six prior juvenile adjudications and three violations of probation, as well as four municipal and four Superior Court convictions as an adult, making it likely he faced the five-year maximum sentence were he convicted at trial. Instead, defendant received the benefit of a favorable offer of two years' probation conditioned on 364 days of county time, the balance of which he served in the County Supplemental Labor Service Program.
The court found no support in the record for defendant's claim that his counsel had pressured him into accepting the plea, noting it was clearly contradicted by defendant's lengthy colloquy with the judge at the time he entered his plea. Reviewing the four Slater factors, the court found none in his favor as defendant did not assert a colorable claim of innocence, and could not offer anything to suggest he was misinformed about the plea or that enforcing it would be unfair to him. He also received the very real benefits of his negotiated plea and the several years that had passed since its entry made it likely that "[t]he State would not be in a better position to try the case in 2014 than it was in 2011."
State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 157-58 (2009).
In discussing the lack of any colorable claim of innocence, the court inaccurately stated that defendant admitted in the course of his plea that he threatened the victim with a gun. Defendant admitted only that he threatened to assault the victim with the purpose to terrorize him. We do not view this isolated misstatement of the record, in an otherwise complete and careful review of the claims, to be material. --------
Defendant presents the following arguments on appeal:
POINT I
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE EFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
(A) THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARISING OUT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
1. TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, AND THEREFORE, CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT II
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA AS IT WAS NOT MADE IN A KNOWING, INTELLIGENT MANNER.
We reject these arguments. Even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to defendant in accordance with State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014), we agree with the trial court that defendant failed to establish a prima facie claim for relief. See Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 462-64. We affirm the denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Snyder's thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 28, 2014.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION