STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL LASANE (06-02-0365, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0843-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL LASANE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted September 22, 2021 – Decided October 8, 2021
Before Judges Fuentes and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 06-02-0365.
Michael Lasane, appellant pro se.
Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella, Chief
Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Shiraz Deen, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, defendant Michael Lasane challenges the denials of his
latest attempt to reverse his conviction. We affirm.
More than two decades ago, defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3), and was sentenced to life imprisonment subject to thirty
years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. See State
v. Lasane, 371 N.J. Super. 151, 154-55 (App. Div. 2004). In the appeal of
defendant's first PCR-petition denial, we reversed and allowed defendant to
withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at 166. Defendant withdrew his guilty plea. A
jury subsequently convicted him of first-degree purposeful or knowing murder,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2); first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(3); first-degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b); first-degree robbery,
N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a) and (b); and first-degree carjacking, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2(a).
See State v. Lasane, No. A-5242-06 (App. Div. Jan. 8, 2010). On appeal, we
affirmed the conviction and remanded for entry of an amended judgment of
conviction with a modified sentence. Id. We affirmed the denial of defendant's
subsequent PCR petitions. State v. Lasane, Nos. A-1872-11, A-1418-12 (App.
Div. Dec. 13, 2013); State v. Lasane, No. A-0592-14 (App. Div. Sept. 28, 2016).
This appeal involves defendant's motion for a new trial, which defendant
based on purportedly newly-discovered evidence. On July 17, 2017, Judge
A-0843-19
2
Wendel E. Daniels issued an order denying the motion and supported the order
with a written decision. Defendant moved for reconsideration of the denial of
the motion for a new trial; Judge Daniels denied the reconsideration motion for
reasons set forth in a written decision. This appeal followed, in which defendant
raises these issues for our review:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR A NEW TRIAL
WHERE IT APPLIED THE WRONG LEGAL
STANDARD TO THE APPELLANT’S CLAIMS OF
JUROR IMPROPRIETY.
POINT II
THE LOWER COURT’S FINDING THAT JUROR #
10’S SISTER WAS NOT A DE FACTO STATE
WITNESS IS NOT BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS WARRANTED.
POINT III
THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO MAKE
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING
APPELLANT’S CLAIM THAT JUROR # 10 MISLED
THE TRIAL COURT CONCERNING HIS SISTER’S
PERSONAL ACQUAINTANCE WITH APPELLANT,
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS WARRANTED.
POINT IV
THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
CLAIMS ADVANCED IN APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER THE CORRECT
LEGAL STANDARD, APPELLANT HAS
A-0843-19
3
SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH WARRANTS A
NEW TRIAL OR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
A. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF 12
PERSONS.
B. JUROR # 10 WAS LEGALLY
DISABLED FROM SERVING AS A
PETIT JUROR DUE TO A
DISQUALIFYING CRIMINAL
HISTORY.
C. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS A
RESULT OF JUROR # 10’S FAILURE TO
INFORM THE TRIAL COURT THAT HE
KNEW THE DEFEND[ANT].
We affirm the orders denying defendant's motions for a new trial and
reconsideration substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Daniels's
comprehensive, written decisions. In addition, we see no abuse of discretion in
the denial of the reconsideration motion. See Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy,
244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021).
Affirmed.
A-0843-19
4