Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4448-13T2
02-03-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QURAN GOODMAN, a/k/a QUAN GOODMAN, QUAN M. GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kimmo Z.H. Abbasi, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lucille M. Rosano, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Rothstadt and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 04-11-3543. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kimmo Z.H. Abbasi, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lucille M. Rosano, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Quran Goodman appeals from the April 21, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Goodman was charged with first-degree murder and weapons offenses. Prior to trial, the State moved to admit evidence on Goodman's and the victim's gang affiliations for the purpose of showing motive. Testimony was taken at the Rule 404(b) hearing from the victim's girlfriend who was acquainted with Goodman. She testified that Goodman was a member of the Crip gang and the victim was a member of the Blood gang and that these two gangs are enemies. She also provided general information about the gangs. The State offered an expert report prepared by Lieutenant Earl Graves, Supervisor of the Essex County Federal Gang Partnership for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office. The proffer was that Graves would testify that the mere presence on a Crip street corner by a Blood would be a sufficient transgression to merit capital punishment of that Blood member. The judge ruled that direct and expert evidence of Goodman's and the victim's gang affiliation was relevant and admissible. He further found that expert testimony was admissible to show motive.
Graves was called as an expert witness by the State during the trial. He testified that he had been employed by the Prosecutor's Office for ten years and supervised the Essex Federal Gang Partnership, during which he had conducted gang-related investigations. He described his attendance at training seminars and workshops. He had previously been qualified and testified as an expert witness in court. Defense counsel did not object to the expert's qualifications; rather, he stated he would have stipulated to them. Graves, thereafter, provided testimony to the jury as to the differences between the Bloods and the Crips and their arch enmity. Defense counsel initially objected to the testimony characterizing the two groups as "arch rivals" as being outside the scope of the expert's report and the objection was sustained by the judge. After conferring with Graves as to his use of the term, counsel withdrew the objection. The expert also identified the markings and tattoos associated with gang membership, specifically the cigarette burns on the victim's shoulder known to be the identifying tattoo of a Blood gang member.
The jury convicted Goodman on all charges. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty years with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility.
In August 2010, we affirmed Goodman's convictions and sentence. State v. Goodman, 415 N.J. Super. 210, 214 (App. Div. 2010) certif. denied, 205 N.J. 78 (2011). He filed a PCR petition pro se, and thereafter a brief was filed by assigned counsel. Goodman asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in his failure to object to the qualifications of Graves and his related testimony concerning gangs and gang-related activity. The PCR judge dismissed Goodman's petition without oral argument. On appeal, we reversed, concluding that oral argument should have been granted. State v. Goodman, No. A-3950-11 (App. Div. Jan. 14, 2014) (slip op. at 7). We also found that the judge's decision to bar on procedural grounds Goodman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object to the qualifications of the State's gang expert was incorrect. Id. at 6. The judge was to consider on remand whether an evidentiary hearing was required as to counsel's decision to withdraw his previously-sustained objection to testimony outside the expert's report. Id. at 7-8.
On remand, the PCR judge heard oral argument on Goodman's petition and denied relief in a comprehensive written decision of April 21, 2014. He reviewed the arguments made in support of Goodman's motion and determined that he had failed to make the requisite showing to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He further found that Goodman had failed to prove he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, noting there was nothing in the trial record to indicate that trial counsel's performance was deficient, nor was there a showing of how the outcome of the trial would have been different if counsel had objected to the State's expert. This appeal followed.
Goodman raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT ONE: THE TRIAL ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS DECISION TO WITHDRAW HIS PREVIOUSLY SUSTAINED OBJECTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE'S EXPERT TO TESTIFY TO INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE EXPERT'S REPORT.
POINT TWO: THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING GOODMAN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE OTHER GROUNDS PRESENTED, EVEN THOUGH GOODMAN SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.
A. The Trial Court Erred in Denying Goodman's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Because Goodman Did Not Receive Adequate Legal Representation from Trial Counsel As a Result of Counsel's Failure to Object to The Qualifications of the State's Expert Witness with Respect to Gangs and Gang-Related Activity.
B. Goodman Was Denied The Effective Assistance of Counsel When Defense Counsel Failed to Challenge The Trial Court's Ruling to Permit the Jury To Learn That Goodman was Incarcerated Pending Trial.
C. Goodman Was Denied The Effective Assistance of Counsel When Trial Counsel Failed to Make A Brady Application.
D. Goodman Was Denied the Effective Assistance of Counsel When Trial Counsel Failed to
Retain an Expert to Rebut the State's Gang Expert.
E. Goodman Was Denied the Effective Assistance of Counsel When Trial Counsel Failed to Appeal the Court's Ruling That No Lesser Included Offense Would Be Charged to The Jury.
F. Goodman's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Should Have Been Granted on the Grounds of Cumulative Error.
POINT III: GOODMAN INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN HIS INITIAL PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of habeas corpus." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992). Under Rule 3:22-2(a), a criminal defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if there was a "[s]ubstantial denial in the conviction proceedings of defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey." "A petitioner must establish the right to such relief by a preponderance of the credible evidence." Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 459 (citing State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579 (1992)). "To sustain that burden, specific facts" that "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its decision" must be articulated. Mitchell, supra, 126 N.J. at 579.
Claims of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel are well suited for post-conviction review. R. 3:22-4(a)(2); Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 460. In determining whether a defendant is entitled to such relief, New Jersey courts apply the test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 698 (1984), and United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658-60, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2046-47, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657, 667-68 (1984). Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 463; State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).
Under the first prong of the Strickland test, a "defendant must show that [defense] counsel's performance was deficient." Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. Under the second prong, a defendant must demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698. A court reviewing a PCR petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims has the discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing only if a defendant establishes a prima facie showing in support of the requested relief. Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 462. The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).
We address Goodman's arguments relating to the failure to object to the State's gang expert. We find this argument lacks merit as the witness clearly was qualified to testify as an expert as to his knowledge of gangs and their culture. N.J.R.E. 702. Graves had worked in the Prosecutor's office for thirteen years. As the supervisor of the gang unit, he had worked on gang investigations. He had previously been qualified as an expert in court and given testimony. Graves had both training and knowledge as to gang culture and behavior, hence any objection would have been futile. Goodman has failed to make a prima facie showing of either prong of the Strickland test necessary for him to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
In a related argument, Goodman states that when his attorney withdrew his objection to certain testimony of Graves, it was deficient conduct. We disagree. Graves intended to use the term "arch rivals" at trial to describe the relationship between the Crips and the Bloods. This term had not been used in his report. After defense counsel objected to the term and the court sustained the objection, counsel then asked to speak to the expert to get a precise understanding of how Graves intended to use the term. When he obtained a satisfactory definition, counsel then withdrew his objection. He agreed that "arch rivals" was used to describe two groups that fight with one another when they get together, and as counsel summarized it: "they act like cats and dogs with each other, fight like cats and dogs, and that whenever they get together, there's generally some kind of beef." Goodman provides no support for his claim that this conduct was deficient nor that he suffered prejudice from this testimony.
As the PCR judge concluded: "Considering the facts in the light most favorable to [defendant], he has not proven a reasonable likelihood of success of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the basis of defense counsel's alleged failure to object to certain expert testimony." As there was no prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, Goodman was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
We find insufficient merit in the remainder of Goodman's arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION