STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE CARRANZA (08-09-2688, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1531-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSE CARRANZA, a/k/a
JOSE LACHIRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued October 14, 2021 – Decided November 1, 2021
Before Judges Whipple and Geiger.
On appeal from the State of New Jersey, Law Division,
Essex County, Indictment No. 08-09-2688.
Jose Carranza, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Frank J. Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex
County Prosecutor, attorney; Frank J. Ducoat, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jose Carranza appeals from the June 5, 2019, denial of his
second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Defendant filed his second
PCR petition in May 2019, more than four years since the court denied his first
PCR petition in October 2014. Because Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) imposes a one-year
limitation on second and subsequent PCR petitions, we affirm.
Defendant raised the following points in this appeal.
POINT I:
PCR COUNSEL DID NOT ADVANCE THE
GROUNDS NOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
GERMANE TO THE SECOND PRO SE PETITION
INSISTED BY MR. JOSE [CARRANZA] . . . WITH
SEPARATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL CLAIMS. THUS, THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 20, 2014 DID NOT
RESULT IN A COMPLETE ADJUDICATION.
BECAUSE PCR COUNSEL "INADVERTENTLY
DID NOT ATTACH[]" . . . THEM TO HIS PCR
BRIEF. AS A RESULT NEITHER THE PCR COURT,
TRIAL COUNSEL, NOR RESPONDENT [WERE]
ABLE TO REVIEW THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
NOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS, SINCE PCR
COUNSEL [VIOLATED] RULE 3:22-6(d) AND THE
HOLDING IN RUE AND WEBSTER . . . CAUSING
NO FINALITY TO THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
HELD ON AUGUST 20, 2014. THUS, "GOOD
CAUSE," RULE 3:22-6(b) EXIST[S] TO RE-ASSIGN
AN ATTORNEY FROM THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER[']S OFFICE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE SMITH AND WEBSTER HOLDINGS TO
GRANT REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S PCR
A-1531-19
2
ORDER AND REMAND FOR FURTHER
COLLATERAL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS.1
POINT II:
THE SECOND PETITION WAS SECURED FOR THE
RECORD SINCE AUGUST 20, 2014, THEREFORE
IT WAS NOT [UNTIMELY] NOR ARE THERE ANY
PROCEDURAL BANS THAT APPLY.
POINT III:
APPELLANT ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY
REFERENCE ALL FACTS, LAW, AND EVIDENCE
FROM THE ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANT IN
HIS SUPPLEMENTAL [LETTER] BRIEF AND
APPENDI[C]ES FILED IN THIS APPEAL.
On September 12, 2008, defendant was indicted for nineteen counts of
numerous offenses. On February 14, 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of four
counts of first-degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and three counts of
felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3). Following mergers, the trial court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate sentence of 155 years subject to the No
Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On November 16, 2013, we affirmed
his convictions and sentence. State v. Carranza, No. A-4139-11T1 (App. Div.
Nov. 6, 2013) (slip op. at 1-2).
1
Defendant omitted citations to State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1 (2002); State v.
Webster, 187 N.J. 254 (2006); State v. Smith, No. A-4371-11 (App. Div. June
19, 2014).
A-1531-19
3
On February 6, 2014, defendant filed his first PCR petition, which the
court denied on October 22, 2014. We affirmed, State v. Carranza, No. A-2777-
14T2 (App. Div. Apr. 17, 2017) (slip op. at 2), and the Supreme Court denied
certification, State v. Carranza, 231 N.J. 208 (2017). Defendant filed his second
PCR petition on May 29, 2019, which the court denied with its order dated June
5, 2019. This appeal followed.
"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of
habeas corpus." State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 576 (2015) (quoting State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992)). Post-conviction relief provides "a built-in
'safeguard that ensures that a defendant was not unjustly convicted.'" State v.
Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013) (quoting State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 482
(1997)). Appellate court "review is necessarily deferential to a PCR cou rt's
factual findings based on its review of live witness testimony." Nash, 212 N.J.
at 540. We review the PCR court's interpretation of the law de novo. Id. at 540-
41.
Rule 3:22-2(e) provides that "[a] petition for post-conviction relief is
cognizable if based upon . . . [a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based
on trial counsel's failure to file a direct appeal of the judgment of conviction and
sentence upon defendant's timely request." "A petitioner is generally barred
A-1531-19
4
from presenting a claim on PCR that could have been raised at trial or on direct
appeal, R. 3:22-4(a), or that has been previously litigated, R. 3:22-5." Nash, 212
N.J. at 546. A petition for PCR is not a substitute for a direct appeal. State v.
Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 583-84 (1992).
But "petitioners are rarely barred from raising ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims on post-conviction review. Such claims may fall within Rule
[3:22-4(a)(3)], which affords post-conviction review for constitutional claims
that could have been raised earlier, because those claims are grounded in the
Sixth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 459-
60. Falling within Rule 3:22-4(a)(3) for claims not raised during the conviction
proceeding or appeal proceeding will not, however, mean that a petitioner has
timely filed pursuant to Rule 3:22-12(a)'s enumerated exceptions to time
limitations.
A first petition for PCR must be filed within five years of the date of entry
of the judgment of conviction, unless, among other things, the petitioner "alleges
facts showing that the delay beyond said time was due to defendant's excusable
neglect and that there is a reasonable probability that if the defendant's factual
assertions were found to be true enforcement of the time bar would result in a
fundamental injustice . . . ." R. 3:22-12(a)(1)(A).
A-1531-19
5
A second or subsequent petition must be filed within one year after the
latest of:
(A) the date on which the constitutional right asserted
was initially recognized by the United States Supreme
Court or the Supreme Court of New Jersey, if that right
has been newly recognized by either of those Courts
and made retroactive by either of those Courts to cases
on collateral review; or
(B) the date on which the factual predicate for the relief
sought was discovered, if that factual predicate could
not have been discovered earlier through the exercise
of reasonable diligence; or
(C) the date of the denial of the first or subsequent
application for post-conviction relief where ineffective
assistance of counsel that represented the defendant on
the first or subsequent application for post-conviction
relief is being alleged.
[R. 3:22-12(a)(2).]
The time limitations shall not be relaxed, except as provided in Rule 3-22:12(a).
In this case, defendant fails to satisfy any condition under Rule 3:22-
12(a)(2) that might permit his second PCR petition. First, defendant fails to
allege new constitutional rights or factual predicates. Defendant exclusively
relies on case law and facts that were known at the time of trial in 2012 and at
the time he filed his first PCR petition in February 2014. Second, defendant
filed his second PCR petition in May 2019—more than four years after the court
A-1531-19
6
denied his first PCR petition in October 2014. This far exceeds the one-year
limitation set forth in Rule 3:22-12(a)(2).
Because defendant fails to demonstrate any condition under Rule 3:22-
12(a)(2), we affirm the trial court's denial of his second PCR petition. Further,
because Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) bars defendant's second PCR petition for
untimeliness, we decline to address any of defendant's additional arguments.
Affirmed.
A-1531-19
7