STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL RICKS (96-04-1271, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4426-17T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL RICKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted May 1, 2019 – Decided May 17, 2019
Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 96-04-1271.
Michael Ricks, appellant pro se.
Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Michael Ricks appeals from an April 19, 2018 order denying
his motion for a new trial. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
Judge Mark S. Ali in his letter opinion issued with the order. We add these
comments.
We previously outlined the history of this case in our sua sponte order
affirming the denial of defendant's fourth petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Ricks, No. A-2223-14 (App. Div. Jan. 21, 2016). In summary, defendant
and several co-defendants were convicted of felony murder in 1997, in
connection with the shooting death of a drug dealer. Defendant was sentenced
to thirty years in prison without parole.
Defendant's current appeal focuses on Victor Parker, who testified against
defendant and co-defendant Darius Murphy, pursuant to a plea agreement.
Defendant contends that in 2016, during an evidentiary hearing on Murphy's
new trial motion, Parker admitted that his trial testimony against Murphy was a
fabrication. Defendant argues that Parker's admission, that he lied about
Murphy at the trial, warrants granting defendant a new trial. That argument is
without merit. Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli denied Murphy's new trial motion,
finding Parker's testimony incredible and completely unreliable. We affirmed
Judge Cifelli's order denying the motion. State v. Murphy, No. A-4346-16 (App.
A-4426-17T2
2
Div. Nov. 21, 2018), certif. denied, 236 N.J. 484 (2019). Defendant is not
entitled to a new trial based on Parker's non-credible testimony purporting to
exculpate Murphy.
Based on his arguments about Parker, defendant also contends that his
trial counsel was ineffective and he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on
that claim. Those contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-4426-17T2
3