STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS FLORES (15-04-0223, SOMERSET 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4369-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LUIS FLORES, a/k/a
EDWIN RIVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted January 24, 2022 – Decided February 4, 2022
Before Judges Fasciale and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 15-04-
0223.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Anthony J. Vecchio, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Kaili E. Matthews, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Luis Flores appeals from an April 27, 2020 order denying his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective during pre-trial proceedings
and throughout the trial by not providing a Spanish interpreter and failing to
argue defendant was intoxicated when he waived his Miranda1 rights. Judge
Anthony F. Picheca, Jr. entered the order and rendered a twenty-seven-page
statement of reasons.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
I. THE PCR COURT ERRED IN NOT
GRANTING DEFENDANT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE
DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
A. Trial Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing To
Provide A Translator During His Discussions
With Defendant And Failing To Discuss Trial
Strategy And Other Concerns Defendant Had
Before Trial.
B. Trial Counsel Failed To Effectively Advocate
For Defendant During The Pre-Trial Miranda
Hearing.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contentions and affirm substantially
for the reasons expressed by Judge Picheca. We add these remarks.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
A-4369-19
2
When a PCR judge does not hold an evidentiary hearing—like here—this
court's standard of review is de novo as to both the factual inferences drawn by
the PCR judge from the record and the judge's legal conclusions. State v. Blake,
444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016).
To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must satisfy the two-pronged test enumerated in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which our Supreme Court adopted in
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). To meet the first Strickland/Fritz prong,
a defendant must establish his or her counsel "made errors so serious that
counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S at 687. A defendant must rebut the
"strong presumption that counsel's conduct [fell] within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689. Thus, this court must consider
whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Id. at 687-88.
To satisfy the second Strickland/Fritz prong, a defendant must show "that
counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
whose result is reliable." Id. at 687. A defendant must establish "a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
A-4369-19
3
proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694. "[I]f counsel's
performance has been so deficient as to create a reasonable probability that these
deficiencies materially contributed to defendant's conviction, the constitutional
right will have been violated." Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58.
A defendant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he or she has
"presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," meaning a "defendant must
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his [or her] . . . claim will ultimately
succeed on the merits." State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997) (first
alteration in original) (citation omitted) (first quoting State v Preciose, 129 N.J.
451, 462 (1992)). A defendant "must do more than make bald assertions that he
[or she] was denied the effective assistance of counsel" to establish a prima facie
claim entitling him or her to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321
N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). A defendant bears the burden of
establishing a prima facie claim. State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012). We
"view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether
a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63.
Here, tried by a jury, defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery,
N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); and third-degree unlawful possession of a
A-4369-19
4
weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d (count two). The State's proofs demonstrated that
defendant stole merchandise from a store. The storeowner witnessed defendant
stealing products off the shelves in the store and blocked the exit while
defendant attempted to leave. While the storeowner tried to call the police using
his cellular phone, defendant grabbed it and fled. As defendant picked up some
money he dropped near the store's exit, the storeowner shoved him and yelled
for assistance while a neighbor assisted in pinning defendant down.
After defendant was read his Miranda rights in Spanish and being
provided with a Miranda warning form written in Spanish, which he signed,
defendant gave a statement to two police officers who were fluent in Spanish.
Defendant's trial counsel moved to suppress defendant's statements to
Lieutenant John Mazuera. 2 On December 9, 2015, a prior judge conducted a
hearing on defendant's Miranda motion. Lieutenant Mazuera testified that
during the interview, defendant was "coherent," "alert," "responsive to the
questions being asked," and "did not appear to be under the influence of any
narcotics [or] drugs."
2
At the time of defendant's interview on April 1, 2015, Mazuera was a sergeant
in the Bound Brook Police Department. He was promoted to the rank of
lieutenant shortly before he testified at the Miranda hearing.
A-4369-19
5
After considering the testimony, the Miranda form, and interview tapes,
the prior judge found defendant "voluntarily," "knowingly and intelligently
waived each and every one of [his] rights prior to making the statement." A
memorializing order was entered on December 17, 2015. Coupled with the other
proofs and testimony adduced at trial, the evidence against defendant was
overwhelming. He was sentenced to an aggregate ten-year prison term and
mandatory parole provisions of the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
We affirmed his convictions but remanded the matter for resentencing, ordering
the merger of count two into count one. State v. Flores, A-0749-16 (App. Div.
July 20, 2018) (slip op. at 30-31). On February 5, 2019, our Supreme Court
denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Flores, 236 N.J. 599(2019).
Defendant filed a timely PCR petition, and his PCR counsel filed an
amended petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to object
to the admissibility of defendant's statement that was not translated by a court -
appointed translator; (2) not providing a Spanish-speaking interpreter during
their discussions; and (3) failing to argue defendant did not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights because he was under the
influence of drugs. The PCR judge denied the petition, including the request for
A-4369-19
6
an evidentiary hearing, holding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie
case of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judge Picheca found there was "not a reasonable probability the results of
the proceedings would have been different had defense counsel used a Spanish -
[speaking] [i]nterpreter during pre-trial meetings" because defendant did not
present "any useful information which would have surfaced during" their pre -
trial meetings. The record further demonstrated that defendant "did understand
the consequences of proceeding to trial," and did not ask questions or "indicate
he was not advised of the consequences." 3 As to defendant's statement-
translation claim, the judge found the lack of a court-appointed translator did
not prejudice defendant because the translation was accurate and defendant "had
every opportunity to cross-examine [the translator] during trial regarding her
translation of the transcript, which his counsel did on his behalf."
Judge Picheca highlighted that we addressed this very issue in our July
20, 2018 decision. And, the judge determined defendant "voluntarily waived
his [Miranda] rights, as he understood the nature of the interrogation and did not
appear to be under the influence of drugs" based on the totality of the
3
The record reveals that during the trial, defendant rejected the State's offer to
plead guilty to second-degree robbery, which potentially could have reduced his
sentence to five years' imprisonment.
A-4369-19
7
circumstances. In reaching his decision, the judge credited Lieutenant
Mazuera's testimony and the jail nurse's medical records from the date of the
offense. Moreover, the judge emphasized defendant did not argue claims at the
PCR hearing set forth in his pro se petition and concluded they lacked merit for
consideration.
Except for his self-serving statements, defendant failed to provide
certifications to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective. With respect to
defendant's claim that trial counsel did not utilize a Spanish interpreter during
pre-trial meetings, defendant does not specify any impact resulting from the
absence of an interpreter. To the contrary, Judge Picheca found:
A thorough review of the trial transcript indicates
[defendant] did understand the consequences of
proceeding to trial. Judge [Robert B.] Reed explained
the consequences of rejecting the State's plea offer and
going to trial on June 14, 2016. . . . [Defendant]'s
responses do not indicate a lack of understanding
regarding the consequences of proceeding to trial.
[Defendant] failed to ask questions, nor did he indicate
he was not advised of the consequences.
Moreover, the record shows defendant and his trial counsel admitted
several times during the pre-trial and trial proceedings to conferring with each
other off the record. Specifically, during the Miranda hearing, the prior judge
permitted trial counsel and defendant to speak off the record at their request
A-4369-19
8
twice. And, during the trial, while addressing defendant's right to testify, the
trial court pointedly asked defendant, "[H]ave you had an adequate opportunity
to discuss this issue with [trial counsel] so that as you stand here . . . comfortable
and confident that you've been provided with sufficient information upon which
to base this decision?" Defendant not only answered affirmatively, but his
counsel confirmed they "had . . . several occasions to address that issue in
preparation for this day." Put simply, defendant has not shown any useful
information which would have surfaced during the meetings had an interpreter
been used, or the purported impact value of such information.
Finally, defendant challenges trial counsel's alleged failure to argue
defendant's Miranda waiver and statements to the police were not made
voluntarily because he was under the influence of drugs. The record
demonstrates otherwise. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that
defendant was—as he now argues for the first time—under the influence during
the police interrogation. The underlying issue is whether defendant voluntarily,
intelligently, and knowingly waived his right against self-incrimination. State
v. Knight, 183 N.J. 449, 461 (2005) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444). When
determining if a statement was made voluntarily, "[a] court must look at the
totality of the circumstances, including both the characteristics of the defendant
A-4369-19
9
and the nature of the interrogation." Id. at 462-63 (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 654 (1993)).
The record shows defendant was not "highly under the influence at the
time he gave his statement to police" so as to be incapable of waiving his
Miranda rights. At trial, Lieutenant Mazuera testified he "did not detect or
smell[] the odor of alcoholic beverage emanating from" defendant. Judge
Picheca considered defendant's medical intake sheet from the Somerset County
Jail on the day of the offense and noted defendant admitted to using drugs the
day before. Although the nurse described defendant as "disheveled," "anxious,"
and at risk for withdrawal, the nurse reported he acted appropriately, spoke
clearly, was able to focus, and did not appear under the influence of drugs or
alcohol.
We reiterate from our prior opinion in the matter under review that "[t]he
State's case was strong and essentially uncontradicted." Therefore, even if
defendant's voluntary statements were suppressed, which in our view would not
have happened, there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Nevertheless, on this
record, defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda
rights. There is no evidence that anyone pressured defendant to give a statement
to the police.
A-4369-19
10
To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, we
conclude that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-4369-19
11