STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTOINE DENNISÂ (06-11-2533, MONMOUTH 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5191-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTOINE DENNIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________
Submitted June 7, 2017 – Decided July 14, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Lisa.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
06-11-2533.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Durrell Wachtler Ciccia,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Paul H.
Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the March 27, 2015 order denying his
post-conviction relief (PCR) petition and his request for an
evidentiary hearing. Defendant is serving a term of life
imprisonment with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier
pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2,
for knowing or purposeful murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1), together
with a consecutive term of ten years' imprisonment with a five-
year parole disqualifier for second-degree possession of a weapon
by a convicted person, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b. The sentences were also
ordered to be served consecutive to an eighteen-year sentence
defendant is serving for a conviction in Hudson County. Defendant
was also convicted of several other counts, for which separate
sentences were not imposed as a result of mergers.
Defendant filed a direct appeal. We affirmed his convictions
on all counts; however, on the State's cross-appeal, we reversed
with respect to certain mergers. State v. Dennis, No. A-2956-10
(App. Div. Nov. 29, 2012).
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition on February 28, 2013,
which did not set forth any claims for relief. Subsequently,
counsel was assigned and filed a new petition on December 3, 2013.
Counsel filed a supporting brief on August 22, 2014. The petition
enumerated thirteen allegations of ineffective assistance by trial
2 A-5191-14T1
counsel and two allegations of ineffective assistance by appellate
counsel.
In his new petition, defendant contended that a reasonable
probability existed that but for the errors of trial counsel the
result of the trial would have been different, and but for the
errors of appellate counsel, a reasonable probability existed that
the outcome of the appeal would have been different. Defendant
requested an evidentiary hearing into the allegations contained
in the petition.
The matter came before Judge Anthony J. Mellaci, Jr. for oral
argument on March 27, 2015. Judge Mellaci had presided over
defendant's trial and was thoroughly familiar not only with the
trial, but with the plea negotiations that had transpired with
defendant, as well as his two co-defendants. Likewise, the judge
had presided over pretrial proceedings and made rulings on the
admissibility of evidence after conducting hearings as required.
It is very clear to us from a review of the transcript of March
27, 2015, that Judge Mellaci, with the assistance of his notes,
possessed a clear and thorough understanding and recollection of
all aspects of the pretrial proceedings, the trial, and the
sentencing, as they related to the issues raised in defendant's
PCR petition.
3 A-5191-14T1
In setting forth the issues, the judge consolidated several
of the thirteen points raised with respect to trial counsel which
dealt with similar subjects, and enumerated nine such issues as
follows: (1) "the trial counsel failed to communicate the
defendant's plea offer to the State;" (2) "trial counsel provided
a generic and insufficient opening statement;" (3) "trial counsel
failed to procure a prior statement made by Jaashawn Jones;" (4)
"trial counsel's cross-examination of Patrolman Whitley, Robert
Angelini, and Sergeant Meany was insufficient and ineffective;"
(5) "trial counsel failed to object to testimony of Detective
Toro, which described an interview with the defendant;" (6) "trial
counsel failed to object to . . . [Sheazel] Collins' testimony
that Pizzarelli had been . . . locked up;" (7) "trial counsel's
closing argument was inappropriate and prejudicial;" (8) "trial
counsel failed to object to damaging and inappropriate comments
made by the State during its closing argument;" and (9) "trial
counsel conceded that defendant qualified for an extended term
eligibility as a persistent offender."
After hearing oral argument, the judge issued a comprehensive
oral opinion consuming twenty-eight transcript pages. He
addressed in turn each of the nine restated allegations of
ineffective assistance by trial counsel. He rejected each of them
4 A-5191-14T1
either on procedural or substantive grounds, or both. For each
allegation he referred to the applicable portion of the trial
proceeding and cited the controlling legal principles. With
respect to appellate counsel, he described the allegations and
noted for the record that he had reviewed them. He then stated
that the allegations were "baseless" and did not warrant specific
discussion.
Based upon his findings, Judge Mellaci concluded as follows:
According to Rule 3:22-10 a trial [c]ourt
has discretion to order an evidentiary hearing
under a defendant's post-conviction relief
petition, during which oral testimony is
taken.
In order to be granted an evidentiary
hearing the defendant must make a prima facie
case in support of his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim. State v. Preciose, [129
N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992)].
This means the defendant must demonstrate
a reasonable likelihood his claim will succeed
on the merits. In making this determination
[c]ourts view the facts in a light most
favorable to the defendant. Preciose at 463.
It is the opinion and finding of this
[c]ourt that the defendant has not
demonstrated that his trial counsel or
appellate counsel's representation fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness or
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any
of these claims, either solely or together,
will succeed on the merits.
Each of the defendant's arguments is
either procedurally barred or based on nothing
more than defendant's own self-serving b[a]ld
assertions; therefore, the defendant is not
entitled to an evidentiary hearing and his
petition for post-conviction relief is denied.
5 A-5191-14T1
On appeal, defendant raises a single issue:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S
REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
We reject defendant's argument. We have reviewed the record,
and we are in full agreement with Judge Mellaci's findings,
analysis, and conclusion. Defendant's arguments are plainly
lacking in merit and do not warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons
expressed by Judge Mellaci in his thorough and well-reasoned oral
opinion of March 27, 2015, denying defendant's PCR petition and
declining to order an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed.
6 A-5191-14T1