STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. M.E.A. (14-06-1533, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2296-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.E.A.,1
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted September 28, 2022 – Decided October 4, 2022
Before Judges Mawla and Marczyk.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 14-06-1533.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Steven E. Braun, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella, Chief
Appellate Attorney, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan,
Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
1
We use initials to protect the victim's identity. See R. 1:38-3(c)(12).
PER CURIAM
Defendant M.E.A. appeals from a September 3, 2020 order denying his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts relating to defendant's offenses,
which we need not repeat here. To summarize, following indictment by a grand
jury for second-degree luring, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6 (count one), and third-degree
endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1) (count two),
defendant pled guilty to count one. The judge who took defendant's plea
meticulously reviewed the plea terms and conditions, the plea forms, and voir
dired defendant regarding the voluntary nature of the plea, including taking
special care to address a comment by defendant seemingly expressing hesitation.
In 2015, defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment, Megan's Law
registration, Nicole's Order, and Parole Supervision for Life (PSL).
In 2020, defendant filed a PCR petition arguing ineffective assistance of
counsel. He claimed he did not have a chance to meet with his attorney; the
attorney failed to investigate the case, including interview the victim; and he did
not have the opportunity to discuss PSL with counsel which, combined with his
mental health and drug abuse, rendered him unable to understand the plea.
A-2296-20
2
Judge Guy P. Ryan heard defendant's petition and rejected each claim in
a written opinion. He found defendant failed to certify what investigation
counsel failed to conduct. The judge noted the State "extensively interviewed"
the victim, the interviews were provided in discovery, and defense counsel's
decision not to interview the victim was strategic and entitled to deference.
Defendant also failed to certify or provide "factual support for the alleged lack
of communication and failure to discuss trial strategy."
The judge also rejected defendant's plea-related claims, finding "the plea
forms . . . [defendant] executed outlined the exact nature of PSL" and defendant
"acknowledged that he . . . read the plea forms[,] including supplemental plea
forms, signed them and understood them." Further, the plea transcript confirmed
the judge who took the plea "reviewed each and every provision of Megan's Law
and PSL with [defendant] . . . . Thereafter, the judge reviewed the plea
agreement with [defendant] who freely and voluntarily waived his right [ to] . . .
trial. . . . [D]efense counsel elicited a factual basis for the plea." Judge Ryan
noted when defendant hesitated during the plea proceeding, the judge
"immediately intervened and inquired about whether he wanted to go forward
with the plea . . . . After giving [defendant] every opportunity[, the j]udge . . .
made detailed findings concerning the voluntary nature of the plea . . . ."
A-2296-20
3
Likewise, the judge found defendant's claims his mental health and
substance abuse impeded his ability to understand the consequences of PSL were
contradicted by the record and unsupported, bald assertions. Although
defendant provided a laboratory report showing elevated lithium levels three-
and-one-half months prior to the plea, the judge found he presented no evidence
"indicating how such lab results . . . affect[ed defendant] or prevent[ed] him
from understanding the nature of the proceedings." Moreover, defendant "was
seeking mental health treatment and advised the judge [at the time of the plea]
he was 'well.'"
Defendant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I – TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS
INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO CONDUCT AN
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OR MEET WITH
DEFENDANT TO DISCUSS TRIAL STRATEGY.
POINT II – DEFENDANT'S PLEA WAS NOT
KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, OR INTELLIGENT.
The Strickland v. Washington standard requires a defendant show counsel
rendered substandard professional assistance that prejudiced the outcome of the
proceedings. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58
(1987) (adopting the Strickland standard). Where a defendant seeks to set aside
a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, they must show: "(i)
A-2296-20
4
counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of
attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have
insisted on going to trial." State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994) (alteration
in original) (citations omitted).
"[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than
make bald assertions that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel.
[They] must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard
performance." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999).
"[W]here the [PCR] court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, we may
exercise de novo review over the factual inferences the trial court has drawn
from the . . . record." State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351, 373 (App. Div.
2014) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004)). We also review a
PCR court's legal conclusions de novo. Ibid.Pursuant to these principles, we affirm for the reasons expressed in Judge
Ryan's thoughtful and well-written opinion. Defendant's arguments are bald
assertions unsupported by the record or objective evidence in the form of
certifications or affidavits, warranting neither PCR nor an evidentiary hearing.
A-2296-20
5
Affirmed.
A-2296-20
6