STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KYREE T. JOHNSON(12-04-0813, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3796-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KYREE T. JOHNSON, a/k/a KYRE JOHNSON,
KYREE JAQUAN JOHNSON, TYREE JOHNSON,
and JOHNSON TYREE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted June 6, 2017 – Decided June 22, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,
Indictment No. 12-04-0813.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Kyree Johnson appeals from a March 18, 2016 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He raises
the following issue on this appeal:
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON THIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY
RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
We affirm.
In 2013, following a series of pre-trial motions, defendant
pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a), and
was sentenced to twelve years in prison subject to the No Early
Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. As set forth in the briefs
and in the PCR judge's opinion, defendant was facing a strong
prosecution case. Witnesses saw defendant fleeing the scene of
the shooting. Another witness saw the shooter run into a store
and discard some of his clothing. The police found a blood stained
shirt and sweatpants, containing both the victim's DNA and
defendant's DNA.
At the plea hearing, defendant confirmed a notation in the
written plea agreement that he was not satisfied with his
attorney's services. However, he gave no explanation for his
dissatisfaction, and confirmed that he wished to plead guilty. He
stated that he had sufficiently discussed the case with his
attorney and provided an adequate factual basis for the guilty
plea. Judge Michele M. Fox, who was then the trial judge,
2 A-3796-15T1
concluded that defendant's unspecified dissatisfaction was not a
bar to the court accepting his guilty plea.
Defendant subsequently filed his PCR petition, attesting in
general terms that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing
to "thoroughly investigate specific issues pertinent to proving
his innocence prior to accepting the terms of a [plea offer]."
In a thorough oral opinion placed on the record on March 18, 2016,
Judge Fox concluded that defendant's PCR arguments were based on
unsupported general assertions which did not establish a prima
facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v.
Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013); State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.
Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).
Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal
standards, we agree with the judge that defendant's PCR contentions
were unsupported by legally competent evidence. Nor did defendant
attest that, but for his attorney's deficient representation, he
would have refused to plead guilty and insisted on going to trial.
See State v. Nuñez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009). Therefore,
the judge properly rejected the PCR without an evidentiary hearing.
Cummings, supra, 321 N.J. Super. at 170. We affirm for the reasons
she stated in her opinion. Defendant's appellate arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(2).
3 A-3796-15T1
Affirmed.
4 A-3796-15T1