Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3154-13T3
02-25-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM MANIGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Sabatino and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 06-03-0355. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant William Manigo appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). We affirm.
The relevant factual background is set forth at length in our 2011 unpublished opinion upholding Manigo's conviction and sentence and those of his two co-defendants, Eugene Dix and Drake Primus. See State v. Manigo, Nos. A-2592-08, A-4537-08, and A-5034-08 (App. Div. Aug. 1, 2011). Manigo was tried with Dix and Primus in 2008 on charges arising out of the robbery and attack of a man in Paterson on December 6, 2005. The victim's throat was slashed during the attack. Nevertheless, the victim was still able to speak with police officers who had responded to the crime scene. The police then encountered three men who fit the description of the attackers about a block away. The victim then identified Manigo and the other two men involved, one of whom was found with blood from the victim on his shirt and was in possession of the victim's keys. Id. at 9-12. The victim died of unrelated causes prior to trial. Id. at 2.
At trial, Manigo was found not guilty of second-degree aggravated assault and first-degree armed robbery but was found guilty of third-degree aggravated assault and second-degree robbery. He received an extended custodial term of eighteen years. On appeal, Manigo and his co-defendants unsuccessfully raised a host of arguments, all of which we rejected. Id. at 5, 12-50. Manigo's petition to the Supreme Court for certification was denied. State v. Manigo, 209 N.J. 97 (2012).
Manigo then filed a PCR application with the trial court. Although he initially raised several other issues in his PCR application, the sole issue he presents on this appeal is whether he was improperly coerced by his trial attorney not to testify at the trial. The trial court rejected that contention, finding no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The PCR judge, the Honorable Raymond A. Reddin, J.S.C., issued a written supplemental opinion on March 14, 2013, incorporating by reference his many reasons for denying the application he expressed while giving his oral opinion on the same date.
Because the judge who presided over the trial has retired, a different judge considered the PCR application. --------
In his supporting certification, Manigo contends that his trial counsel did not prepare him for withstanding cross-examination if he took the stand. Thus, he argues that he was not fully informed about the advantages and disadvantages of testifying. As the PCR judge correctly recognized, the trial transcript clearly shows that Manigo was questioned on the record by his attorney and by the trial judge concerning this subject, and he agreed that his election not to testify was "completely [his] own decision."
Moreover, as of the time of the 2008 trial, Manigo had at least seven prior adult convictions. Many or all of those convictions likely would have been disclosed in sanitized form to the jury as impeachment proof under N.J.R.E. 609 if he took the stand. A prudent defense attorney in such circumstances rightly would dissuade his or her client with such an extensive criminal record from testifying.
Furthermore, as Judge Reddin pointed out, there was little if any reason to believe that Manigo was innocent, since he was found with the two other perpetrators together at 2:00 a.m. on a desolate street a short distance from the attack only minutes after it occurred, and was positively identified by the victim as one of the assailants. Manigo does not specify factually how his testimony would have overcome such strongly inculpatory evidence and changed the outcome at trial.
We agree with Judge Reddin that Manigo has failed to present a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the well-established criteria of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984) (requiring a demonstration of deficient performance and actual prejudice) and State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland standards in New Jersey). Even viewed in an indulgent manner in accordance with State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014), Manigo's bare contentions do not amount to a prima facie showing of deficient performance by his trial counsel, who did succeed in getting him acquitted on the more serious charges. Nor is there a prima facie showing of any actual prejudice arising from counsel's efforts. Consequently, no evidentiary hearing on Manigo's application was warranted. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).
We thus affirm the denial of the PCR application, substantially for the cogent reasons expressed in Judge Reddin's opinion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION