STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN WESLEY POTEAT (96-10-0575, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3233-18
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHN WESLEY POTEAT,
a/k/a/ JOHN W. POTEAT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted May 19, 2021 – Decided June 2, 2021
Before Judges Whipple and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Cape May County, Indictment No. 96-10-
0575.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (John Douard, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Jeffrey H. Sutherland, Cape May County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Brett Yore, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following a jury trial in 1997, defendant John Wesley Poteat was
convicted of multiple offenses charged in a Cape May indictment, including
murder, felony murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and
weapons offenses for his part in the stabbing death of a tavern patron and
robbery of the bartender. Defendant's sentence included two life sentences.
We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. State v. Poteat, No.
A-7163-96 (App. Div. May 21, 1999). The Supreme Court denied certification.
163 N.J. 76 (2000). In May 2006, the trial court denied defendant's initial
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In March 2014, defendant filed a
second PCR petition, which was denied as untimely. We affirmed. State v.
Poteat, No. A-4219-13 (App. Div. June 15, 2015). Thereafter defendant's pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed as untimely. Poteat v. Att'y
Gen. of N.J., No. 16-2351 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2017).
In July 2018, defendant moved pro se for a new trial on the grounds of
newly discovered evidence. Counsel was assigned but did not supplement
defendant's handwritten submission. Defendant raised the following points
before the Law Division:
I. The State withheld evidence of co[-]defendant's
mental health issues.
2 A-3233-18
II. Defendant's statement at the police station should
have been inadmissible because he was intoxicated; he
was denied food and water and coerced into making the
statement.
III. Defendant's initial arrest was invalid and his
subsequent confession should be inadmissible because
he was arrested on a non-existent warrant.
IV. DNA evidence did not identify defendant as a
source of the DNA.
V. Co-[d]efendant has recanted any implication of
defendant in the crimes for which he was convicted.
VI. Defendant was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel failed to file necessary
motions and failed to present evidence of defendant's
mental state.
Following argument on July 31, 2018, Judge Michael J. Donohue reserved
decision. On August 9, 2018, the judge issued a cogent written opinion, denying
defendant's motion. The judge squarely rejected defendant's contentions in view
of the governing law, including the well-established test reiterated by our
Supreme Court in State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981). As the judge aptly
recognized: "Defendant has pursued the full panoply of post-conviction
litigation . . . ." And after fully considering defendant's present claims in view
of his prior post-conviction filings, the judge concluded each claim could not be
3 A-3233-18
characterized as newly discovered evidence. The same day, the judge issued a
memorializing order.
On appeal, defendant maintains a new trial is warranted for the same
reasons raised before Judge Donohue. More particularly, defendant raises the
following points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE
. . . CARTER STANDARD IN DENYING THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
A. Validity Of The Arrest Warrant.
B. [Defendant]'s Intoxication During The Interrogation
Resulted In A Coerced Confession.
C. Co-Defendant Recanted His Statement Implicating
[Defendant] In The Crimes Of Which [He] Was
Convicted.
POINT II
AS IN CARTER, THERE IS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF A BRADY[1] VIOLATION TO
WARRANT A REMAND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO DETERMINE IF THE PROSECUTOR
IN 1996 FAILED TO PROVIDE DNA EVIDENCE.
1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
4 A-3233-18
POINT III
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE TRIAL
COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE NECESSARY
MOTIONS. U.S. CONST. AMENDS V, VI and XIV;
N.J. CONST. ART. I, [¶¶] 1, 9, AND 10.
We have considered defendant's arguments in view of the applicable law
and the record, and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in
a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons
articulated by Judge Donohue in his well-reasoned decision, which was
supported by the record and is entitled to our deference. See State v. Russo, 333
N.J. Super. 119, 137 (App. Div. 2000) (recognizing "a motion for a new trial is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the exercise of that
discretion will not be interfered with on appeal unless a clear abuse has been
shown").
Affirmed.
5 A-3233-18