STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANWAR T. CROCKETT (11-06-1111 AND 11-06-1112, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0837-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANWAR T. CROCKETT a/k/a
CROCKET, ANWAR WILLIAMS,
and KYLE H. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 3, 2019 – Decided December 10, 2019
Before Judges Gilson and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 11-06-1111
and 11-06-1112.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief
(PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Judge Martin Cronin, who also had tried
the case, entered the order under review and issued a thorough written decision.
On appeal, defendant limits his argument to a single point for our consideration:
THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE
DEFENDANT HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA
FACIE CASE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S
INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR
A SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANT.
We have carefully considered defendant's contention in light of the
applicable law, and conclude it lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set
forth by Judge Cronin in his well-reasoned decision. We add only the following
brief remarks.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he "has
presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J.
89, 158 (1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.
451, 462 (1992)), meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that his . . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. For a
defendant to obtain relief based on ineffective assistance grounds, he is obliged
A-0837-18T4
2
to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's performance was
deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,
58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey) (Strickland/Fritz
test).
In sum, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his
PCR claim will ultimately succeed on the merits and failed to satisfy either
prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. Because there was no prima facie showing of
ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to
resolve defendant's PCR claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.
Affirmed.
A-0837-18T4
3