STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMMITT PATTERSON (94-10-3570, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0812-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EMMITT PATTERSON,
a/k/a DAVID AVIE,
EMMIT L. PATTERSON,
and EMMETT PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 20, 2022 – Decided February 2, 2022
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 94-10-3570.
Emmitt Patterson, appellant pro se.
Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Emmitt Patterson appeals from the Law Division's August 31,
2020 order denying his motions for a new trial and to correct an illegal sentence.
We affirm.
Following a trial, a jury convicted defendant of felony murder, N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a)(3); aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a); two counts of
armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-
2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); unlawful
possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and possession of a weapon for
an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). On February 16, 1996, the trial court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of thirty years to life in prison with
thirty years of parole ineligibility.
Over twenty-three years later, defendant filed a pro se motion for a new
trial. Defendant asserted that his trial was scheduled to begin on September 18,
1995. On that date, however, the prosecutor provided defendant's attorney with
additional discovery. This material included a police report concerning a
statement defendant made to a police officer, a ballistics report, and a
photograph of defendant's gunshot wound. The prosecutor also advised defense
counsel that a co-defendant intended to plead guilty and testify for the State at
the trial.
A-0812-20
2
In view of this development, the trial court adjourned the hearing for
several months. Because defendant's attorney had a commitment to participate
in another trial out of state, he arranged to have another public defender
appointed to represent defendant. Defendant's attorney submitted letters he sent
to defendant in September 1995 advising him of the new discovery. The
attorney also advised the trial court that defendant "indicated to me [after
September 18, 1995,] that he wants a trial in his case and will refuse all plea
offers."
In his motion for a new trial, defendant argued the discovery constituted
"newly discovered evidence" that now warranted a new trial. He also asserted
his sentence was illegal because he could not properly consider the State's plea
offer without having that discovery.
In her August 31, 2020 written decision, Judge Mayra Velez Tarantino
considered defendant's contentions and denied his motions. The judge found
that defendant received the new discovery prior to his trial and, therefore, it did
not constitute newly discovered evidence requiring a new trial. The judge also
concluded that defendant's life sentence was not illegal under the New Jersey
Criminal Code.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:
A-0812-20
3
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL
AND TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE
WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT, AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ISSUES TO BE
BRIEFED, WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON THE CLAIMS THAT WERE
SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATIONS, AND FAILED
TO MAKE ANY FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THEREFORE THE
ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE
MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR A
HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS.
We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the
applicable legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to
warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Tarantino's thoughtf ul decision
and add the following brief comments.
To secure a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a
defendant must show that the evidence is 1) material,
and not "merely" cumulative, impeaching, or
contradictory; 2) that the evidence was discovered after
completion of the trial and was "not discoverable by
reasonable diligence beforehand"; and 3) that the
evidence "would probably change the jury's verdict if a
new trial were granted."
[State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 187 (2004) (quoting State
v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981)).]
All three prongs must be established.
A-0812-20
4
In applying this three-part test, Judge Tarantino properly found that
defendant learned of the existence of the discovery before the trial began, and
the trial court then adjourned the trial for several months to give defendant extra
time to review the materials with his new attorney. Because defendant had all
of the State's discovery prior to the trial, he obviously failed to meet prong two
of the test. Therefore, Judge Tarantino properly denied defendant's motion for
a new trial.
We also reject defendant's argument that the State violated Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Under Brady, the State must turn over
exculpatory material in its possession or under its control to the defense. Id. at
87. Here, the State disclosed the discovery before the trial began.
Although defendant now claims he might have accepted the State's plea
offer if he had received this information sooner, defendant submitted his prior
attorney's September 29, 1995 letter to the trial court as part of his motion
papers. In that letter, the attorney advised the court that "[a]fter a complete
discussion of the case, [defendant] indicated to me that he wants a trial in his
case and will refuse all plea offers." Thus, defendant's newly minted claim lacks
merit.
A-0812-20
5
We also reject defendant's argument that his sentence was illegal. Rule
3:21-10(b)(5)(a) allows a defendant to "correct[] a sentence not authorized by
law including the Code of Criminal Justice" at any time. (emphasis added.)
However, defendant's life sentence was fully authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(b)(1). That statute permits the court to sentence a defendant convicted of
murder "to a specific term of years which shall be between [thirty] years and life
imprisonment of which the person shall serve [thirty] years before being eligible
for parole." Ibid. Therefore, defendant's sentence was legal.
Defendant's remaining arguments also lack merit. Defendant did not ask
for oral argument in his notices of motion. Instead, he stated he would "rely on
the certifications" he submitted in support of the motions. There was no need
for an evidentiary hearing because there were no material issues of disputed fact
that could not be resolved by reference to the existing record. See R. 3:22-10(b).
Finally, Judge Tarantino's findings of fact and conclusions of law fully
explained the bases for her decision. See R. 3:29 (requiring the trial court to
"place on the record the reasons supporting its decision on . . . application[s] for
. . . [a] change or reduction of sentence, or other disposition of a criminal
matter.").
Affirmed.
A-0812-20
6