Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0167-14T2
06-29-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TERRENCE L. INGRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Beverly I. Nwanna, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 06-04-0381. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Beverly I. Nwanna, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Terrence Ingraham appeals from an order of the trial court denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm. On April 20, 2006, a Union County Grand Jury indicted defendant on seven counts of first degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; five counts of second degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; and five counts of third degree unlawful possession of a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b.
On April 25, 2008 and June 9, 2008, defendant was convicted, through both a jury trial and by pleading guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the State, of seven counts of first degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; one count of second degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; and five counts of third degree unlawful possession of a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b. The trial court sentenced defendant on July 25, 2008, to an aggregate extended term of forty-five years, subject to the eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1.
We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Terrance L. Ingraham, No. A-6316-07 (App. Div. July 29, 2011). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Ingraham, 209 N.J. 430 (2012). Defendant filed this PCR petition on July 12, 2012, in the Law Division, Criminal Part in Union County. We incorporate by reference the facts underlying defendant's conviction as described in our unpublished opinion affirming defendant's conviction. Ingraham, supra, slip op. at 3-11.
Defendant's first name is spelled differently in this opinion. --------
By Order dated October 3, 2013, the Assignment Judge of the Union County Vicinage transferred the case for disposition to the Middlesex County Vicinage. The case was transferred because a sitting criminal judge in the Union County Vicinage "has been referred to as a potential witness" in nine cases, including the case against defendant Terrance Ingraham.
On February 28, 2014, defendant's PCR petition came for adjudication before Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alberto Rivas. Defendant's PCR counsel argued defendant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when his attorney failed to communicate with him and present "alternative theor[ies] of the crime." Without citing specific evidence to support these claims, PCR counsel argued trial counsel "should have explored the possibility of raising an intoxication or insanity defense as an alternative theory of the crime." With respect to the crimes to which defendant pled guilty, PCR counsel argued defendant was "misled, via counsel's ineffective assistance, into believing that he had no viable alternative to accepting the plea offer." Finally, defendant argued there were cumulative errors that resulted in a denial of his right to a fair trial.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Rivas denied defendant's petition finding defendant did not present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel that would warrant the need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Judge Rivas explained his reasons for reaching this conclusion in a detailed oral opinion delivered from the bench on February 28, 2014.
Defendant now appeals raising the following argument.
POINT ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO REQUEST A WADE HEARING.
We reject this argument and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Rivas. We review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). First, defendant must demonstrate 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. Second, he must show there exists "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.
In a case in which a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the State, "defendant must show that (i) counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994)).
As Judge Rivas explained, defendant made broad claims attacking his trial attorney's performance that were not supported by "an iota of factual evidence." His legal arguments were either directly addressed and rejected by our opinion on direct appeal or were totally lacking in merit.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION