STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARCELLUS BARNES (12-12-2067, MONMOUTH 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0837-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARCELLUS BARNES,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted September 28, 2021 – Decided October 22, 2021
Before Judges Fisher and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 12-12-
2067.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Lori Linskey, Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Carey J. Huff, Special Deputy
Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Marcellus Barnes appeals from an August 30, 2019 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree possession of a
controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) and fourth-degree
hindering, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b). In addition, the judge found defendant guilty
of a disorderly persons charge of possession of marijuana. The court sentenced
defendant to an extended aggregate six-year term of imprisonment.
We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal. State v. Barnes, No.
A-4790-13 (App. Div. Feb. 23, 2016) (slip op. at 13). Defendant then filed a
PCR petition asserting multiple claims, including contentions that his trial
attorney coerced him into waiving his right to testify and failed to adequately
investigate and call favorable witnesses. He also asserted appellate counsel
failed to raise any ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal.
In an oral opinion issued on August 30, 2019, the PCR judge rejected all
of defendant's PCR arguments. He noted that defendant elected not to testify at
trial. The judge stated: "Counsel confirmed defendant made this decision after
consulting with him and defendant confirmed this on the record." Therefore,
the record contradicted defendant's assertion that he was coerced into not
testifying.
A-0837-19
2
In considering defendant's additional contentions, the PCR judge stated:
[D]efendant does not assert how counsel could have
better investigated the case and in fact, the record
shows defendant did have an investigator working on
the case. Additionally, defendant does not indicate
which person should have been called to favorably
testify for him or what they would have testified to.
Defendant has not shown, therefore that trial counsel
was deficient in this regard.
The PCR judge also found appellate counsel was not ineffective because
"post conviction relief is the proper method to address ineffective assistance of
counsel claims."
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
I. WHETHER THE PCR COURT SHOULD HAVE
GRANTED DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING FOR HIS PETITION FOR PCR BASED
ON
A. Counsel's failure to conduct firsthand investigation
of the 1311 Washington Avenue apartment
B. Counsel's failure to find other potential witnesses to
testify during trial for the defense
II. WHETHER DEFENDANT PRESENTED THE
NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S
COERCION OF DEFENDANT NOT TO TESTIFY TO
WARRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
III. WHETHER DEFENDANT PRESENTED
EVIDENCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL'S
A-0837-19
3
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO
WARRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
We affirm for the reasons stated in the PCR judge's opinion, adding only
the following comments. To establish a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a defendant must present legally competent evidence
rather than "bald assertions." See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170
(App. Div. 1999). Defendant did not meet that standard here. He did not provide
certifications from any witnesses whom he claimed his attorney should have
interviewed. Nor did he describe how any other testimony from other witnesses
besides the two individuals who testified at trial, could have aided his defense.
Similarly, defendant does not explain how an in-person visit by trial
counsel to the apartment where the drugs were found would have uncovered any
information that might have changed the outcome of the case.
As the PCR judge found, the record reflects that defendant voluntarily
chose not to testify on his own behalf. Not only did defendant confirm to the
court that he did not intend to testify, but his counsel requested a break to speak
with defendant before confirming to the court that defendant would not be
testifying.
In summary, defendant did not present a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Preciose,
A-0837-19
4
129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992) (holding that a court should grant an evidentiary
hearing "if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of post -
conviction relief."). Any additional arguments not specifically addressed lack
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0837-19
5