Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5436-13T3
04-20-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEREMY WATSON, a/k/a JEREMY WARREN WATSON, LITTLE FACE, JERAMY WATSON, and JERMEY WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Daniel Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Amanda K. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Leone and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 06-08-0748. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Daniel Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Amanda K. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a March 20, 2014 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
We previously related the facts in detail in our affirmance of defendant's conviction on direct appeal. State v. Watson, No. A-2921-08 (App. Div. May 25, 2012). We briefly summarize facts relevant to this appeal here.
On March 2, 2006, defendant shot two people, killing one and injuring the other, in a park in Plainfield during a robbery. Prior to his trial, defendant filed a motion in limine to suppress several pieces of evidence that he asserts were obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant specifically asserted that police unlawfully entered his home and conducted an illegal search. Defendant's motion was denied on March 30, 2007.
On March 12, 2008, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1),(2); first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 5-1; second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a); and third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(3). The sentencing judge merged several counts and sentenced defendant to seventy-seven years of incarceration subject to an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
Defendant appealed his conviction and his sentence. We affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. See Watson, supra. Thereafter, defendant filed a petition for certification to our Supreme Court, which was denied on November 7, 2012. State v. Watson, 212 N.J. 460 (2012). Defendant filed a PCR petition on May 21, 2012. The court issued a written opinion and order denying defendant's motion for oral argument and an evidentiary hearing, as well as defendant's PCR petition on March 20, 2014. This appeal followed.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I.
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. WATSON'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING POST CONVICTION RELIEF COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT.
POINT II.
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF MR. WATSON'S CLAIM THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.
In a separate pro se brief defendant raised these additional arguments.
POINT I.
PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND MOTION COUNSEL (U.S. CONST., AMEND. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST., (1947), ART.I, PAR.10.)
A. PETITIONER ASSERTS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON MARK A. BAILEY, MOTION COUNSEL, FOR FAILING TO INVESTIGATE AND CHALLENGE DEFENDANT WATSON'S ARREST AT MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING.
B. PETITIONER ASSERTS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY MARK A. BAILEY, MOTION COUNSEL, FOR FAILING TO INVESTIGATE AND CHALLENGE WATSON'S STRIPPING/CONFISCATION OF HIS CLOTHES, MONEY, AND CELL PHONE AT MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING.
C. PETITIONER ASSERTS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON MARK A. BAILEY, MOTION COUNSEL, FOR FAILING TO READ AND CHALLENGE THE FIRST SEARCH WARRANT SIGNED BY JUDGE DONOHUE AT MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING.
We affirm substantially for the reasons discussed in Judge Stuart Peim's cogent opinion. We add the following comments.
Defendant asserts that his motions counsel and trial counsel were ineffective such that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for oral argument and an evidentiary hearing because defendant was able to demonstrate a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance under the Strickland/Fritz framework. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). In order to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) that his or her counsel's representation was deficient when weighed against an objective standard of attorney competence; and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced defendant to the extent that there is "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Ibid.
Defendant asserts that he should have been given the opportunity for oral argument, as well an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. We initially note that "[t]here is no court rule that specifically permits oral argument on a petition for post-conviction relief." State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382, 385 (App. Div. 2001). Although there is a presumption in favor of oral argument, the trial court is vested with the discretion to disallow it. Id. at 386-87; State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 281 (2012). In determining whether to grant argument, the court should consider "the apparent merits and complexity of the issues . . . whether argument of counsel [would] add to the written positions . . . and in general, whether the goals and purposes of the post-conviction procedure are furthered by oral argument." Parker, supra, 212 N.J. at 282 (quoting Mayron, supra, 344 N.J. Super. at 387).
The trial judge considered all of these factors in his opinion, providing a "statement of reasons" for denying oral argument as required by our Supreme Court. Id. at 282-83. The judge noted that defendant submitted only "bald assertions" to support his petition, and provided no evidence to support his claims of ineffective assistance. "'[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions;'" he "must allege specific facts and evidence supporting his allegations, . . . 'supported by affidavits or certifications.'" State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999)). "[W]hen a petitioner claims his trial attorney inadequately investigated his case, he must assert the facts that an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification." Id. at 353 (quoting Cummings, supra, 321 N.J. Super. at 170).
Additionally, because defendant submitted no corroboration with his papers on his petition, defendant failed to make a prima facie case for PCR. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J 451, 462-63 (1992) (establishing that petitioners must demonstrate a prima facie case of ineffective assistance to obtain an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition). The trial judge's denial of an evidentiary hearing was thus appropriate in this case.
Defendant failed to present any evidence to the court in the form of certifications, affidavits, or reports. Accordingly, oral argument would have been unhelpful, and would not have added to the positions espoused by defendant on the papers.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION