Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1460-14T3
04-05-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DARA WOODALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). James P. McClain, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brett Yore, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 08-01-0164. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). James P. McClain, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brett Yore, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Dara Woodall appeals from the October 16, 2014 order denying her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and weapons offenses. She is serving a seventy-year prison term with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. In July 2011, we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. State v. Woodall, No. A-1479-09 (App. Div. July 1, 2011), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 601 (2011). Defendant filed a PCR petition pro se, and thereafter a brief was filed by assigned counsel. Defendant asserted that her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in his failure to call certain witnesses.
Following oral argument on defendant's petition, the PCR judge denied relief in an oral decision on October 16, 2014. He reviewed the arguments made in support of defendant's motion and determined that she had failed to make the requisite showing to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He further found that defendant had failed to prove she 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.
In addressing the certifications submitted by defendant of two witnesses she alleged should have been presented at trial, the judge noted that neither certification supported defendant's assertion that other witnesses had been pressured to change their testimony; instead, both witnesses repeated in their statements what the jury had heard during the trial. In addition, he stated:
[E]ven if the court would say this is not a bald assertion, it's unlikely that anything counsel could have done over that issue of pressure would have resulted in any kind of different outcome because there were other witnesses . . . who gave statements that inculpated the defendant . . . who witnessed the shooting.
The witnesses defendant desired to testify had not been at the scene of the incident; the judge found much of their proffered testimony would have been inadmissible hearsay. --------
Woodall raises the following issue on appeal:
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO HAVE EXCULPATORY WITNESSES TESTIFY.
Claims of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel are well suited for post-conviction review. R. 3:22-4(a)(2); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 460 (1992). 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 find insufficient merit in all of defendant's arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the reasoning set forth in the judge's oral decision.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION