STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CLIFFORD HARRIS (96-05-0548, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0677-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CLIFFORD HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Argued telephonically June 7, 2018 –
Decided June 20, 2018
Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Union County, Indictment No.
96-05-0548.
Clifford Harris, appellant, argued the cause
pro se.
Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued
the cause for respondent (Michael A.
Monahan, Acting Union County Prosecutor,
attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Clifford Harris appeals from the August 29, 2016
Law Division order denying his second petition for post-conviction
relief (PCR). Because the trial judge failed to make any
meaningful findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of
his decision, we are constrained to reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
After a jury found defendant guilty of murder, possession
of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of
a weapon, the trial court sentenced defendant to a thirty-year
term of imprisonment, with a thirty-year period of parole
ineligibility, for murder, and a concurrent four-year term for
unlawful possession of a weapon.1 On defendant's direct appeal,
we affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court
denied certification. State v. Harris, No. A-2261-97 (Oct. 23,
2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 629 (2001).
Defendant subsequently filed a petition for PCR in which he
alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective in various
respects. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court denied defendant's petition, and we affirmed this
determination. State v. Harris, No. A-0728-04 (Mar. 28, 2006).
1
The court merged defendant's conviction for possession of a
weapon for an unlawful purpose into his conviction for murder.
2 A-0677-16T4
In June 2016, defendant filed his second petition for PCR.
Among other things, defendant alleged that his sentence was illegal
because the trial court failed to: (1) grant him appropriate
"good time" credits against his period of parole ineligibility;
(2) properly apply this court's decision in Merola v. Department
of Corrections, 285 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 1995); and (3)
take into account certain amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b) that
he believed affected the constitutionality of his sentence.
Without conducting oral argument or a hearing, the trial
court denied defendant's petition in a one-sentence order that
merely stated: "ORDERED, that the petition for [PCR] is hereby
denied for failure to allege on its face a basis to preclude
dismissal under N.J.C.R. [sic] 3:22-4(b)." The court did not
make any findings of fact concerning defendant's contentions,
state what specific arguments it considered, or explain its
reasoning or conclusions of law in connection with its terse
ruling. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant presents the same contentions he raised
before the trial court. He asserts that he "is entitled to
'good time' credits which were already entered on his official
classification records, to complete his entire thirty-year
sentence, or, in the alternative, a hearing to determine whether
the denial of the application of these credits violates the
3 A-0677-16T4
constitutions of New Jersey and the United States." However, we
are unable to review this issue because the trial court ignored
its duty to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
No one – not the parties and not this court – can properly
function or proceed without some understanding of why a judge
has rendered a particular ruling. See Curtis v. Finneran, 83
N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring trial court to clearly state
its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal
conclusions). The failure to provide findings of fact and
conclusions of law "constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the
attorneys and the appellate court." Ibid. (quoting Kenwood Assocs.
v. Bd. of Adjustment, Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div.
1976)). As our colleague, Judge Jose Fuentes, recently stated,
"our function as an appellate court is to review the decision of
the trial court, not to decide the motion tabula rasa." Estate of
Doerfler v. Federal Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018)
(slip op. at 5).
While this was defendant's second petition for PCR, its
resolution still "required a careful analysis and the requisite
findings to insure a just result. Fact-finding is just that.
It is not a recitation of [a court rule] but a clear and concise
demonstration that the litigant[] [has] been heard and [his]
4 A-0677-16T4
arguments considered. Justice requires no less." Bailey v. Bd.
of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001).
Accordingly, we reverse the August 29, 2016 order. We
remand this matter with the direction that the trial court
consider defendant's contentions, and make detailed findings of
fact and conclusions of law on all the issues raised, within
forty-five days of the date of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
5 A-0677-16T4