Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2990-15T2
08-02-2017
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARIO MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Gilson and Sapp-Peterson. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 96-05-0882. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a February 22, 2016 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). The trial court, without conducting oral argument, denied his petition. The court found that the petition, filed more than seven years following his March 23, 2007 conviction, was time-barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-12. The court additionally found that in the absence of the time bar, defendant's petition failed to establish a prima facie case in support of post-conviction relief.
In State v. Parker, the Court held that
when the trial judge does reach the determination that the arguments presented in the papers do not warrant oral argument, the judge should provide a statement of reasons that is tailored to the particular application, stating why the judge considers oral argument unnecessary. A general reference to the issues not being particularly complex is not helpful to a reviewing court when a defendant later appeals on the basis that the denial of oral argument was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion.
[Ibid.]
Here, the PCR court failed to include any explanation for declining to afford defendant oral argument. We are therefore constrained to reverse and remand the matter to the trial court for a statement of reasons, tailored to this matter, explaining why oral argument is unnecessary; or alternatively, for reconsideration of the petition after entertaining oral argument. Ibid.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION