STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAIME GONZALEZ (10-02-0311, OCEAN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5563-16T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAIME GONZALEZ, a/k/a
WILFREDO LUGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted December 5, 2018 - Decided January 8, 2019
Before Judges Accurso and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 10-02-0311.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Monique D. Moyse, Designated Counsel;
Carolyn V. Bostic, on the brief).
Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief
Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Roberta DiBiase,
Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jaime Gonzalez appeals from the denial of his petition for post-
conviction relief (PCR), contending he established a prima facie case of
ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing. Because the
trial judge correctly determined the evidence insufficient to sustain defendant's
burden, we affirm.
Suspecting defendant of drug trafficking, police obtained a no-knock
search warrant for his home in 2009. When police executed the warrant by
breaking down defendant's fortified front door in the middle of the night, he
engaged in a gun battle with police in which he and two officers were wounded.
In a subsequent search, police recovered significant quantities of marijuana and
cocaine as well as other drugs, five cell phones, $12,582 in cash, ammunition
and the .357 handgun defendant used to shoot at the officers.
Defendant testified in his own defense at trial. He claimed his home had
been broken into four times, most recently two weeks before police executed
their search warrant. One of those robberies, in 2002, resulted in defendant
being badly beaten and his girlfriend and infant daughter tied up and threatened
with a gun. That incident frightened him and caused him to move his family out
of that apartment. According to defendant, just two weeks before this incident,
A-5563-16T1
2
armed robbers again broke into his home and menaced him, only leaving when
his mother, who was visiting from Florida, screamed and threatened to call the
police. Defendant claimed he went to Newark the next day and bought a gun to
protect himself.
On the night police entered his house on the warrant, defendant claimed
he was watching TV in an upstairs bedroom with a friend when he heard loud
thumps and a commotion downstairs. Assuming he was again being robbed,
defendant retrieved his newly acquired gun and fired a warning shot across the
hallway. Defendant claimed he never heard anyone call out "police" or order
him to drop his gun. Defendant's friend testified for the State. He claimed that
upon hearing the noises downstairs, defendant said "he was getting robbed."
Rejecting defendant's claims of self-defense, the jury convicted defendant
of five counts of attempted murder; ten counts of aggravated assault;
fortification of the premises; possession of a firearm while engaged in drug
activity; possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose; receipt of a stolen
handgun; two counts of possession with intent to distribute CDS; four counts of
possession of CDS and possession of a prohibited weapon. The judge sentenced
him to an aggregate forty-five years in State prison with a parole ineligibility
term of twenty-nine and one-half years.
A-5563-16T1
3
We affirmed defendant's conviction, remanding for reconsideration one
aspect of the sentence, State v. Gonzalez, No. A-5195-12 (App. Div. Aug. 27,
2015) (slip op. at 1-5). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for
certification, State v. Gonzalez, 224 N.J. 246 (2016).
Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR claiming his trial counsel was
ineffective for, among other things, failing to adequately present the defense of
self-defense. After hearing argument by assigned counsel, the judge issued a
written opinion denying the petition on the basis that defendant had failed to
establish a prima facie claim for relief. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-
64 (1992). The judge found the trial record amply demonstrated counsel's
presentation of defendant's claim of self-defense to the jury. The judge found
counsel presented the impact the prior robberies had on defendant through
defendant's own testimony. The judge further found defendant failed to
demonstrate he was prejudiced by counsel's efforts on his behalf at trial and thus
could not meet either prong of the Strickland 1 test.
Defendant appeals, reprising the arguments he made to the trial court and
claiming the trial court erred in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.
We disagree.
1
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984).
A-5563-16T1
4
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, defendant must establish,
first, that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness" and, second, that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694. A defendant must do more than
demonstrate that an alleged error might have "had some conceivable effect on
the outcome of the trial," State v. Sheika, 337 N.J. Super. 228, 242 (App. Div.
2001); instead, he must prove the error is so serious as to undermine the court's
confidence that the "defendant's trial was fair, and that the jury properly
convicted him," State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 583, 588 (2015).
Measured by that standard, we agree with the trial judge that defendant
has not established he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.
Defendant's chief argument on appeal is that his counsel could have buttressed
his testimony at trial and strengthened his claim of self-defense by calling his
mother and ex-girlfriend to testify about the prior robberies and introduced the
police report and medical records from the 2002 home invasion. Defendant,
however, did not produce certifications in the trial court detailing the testimony
his mother and ex-girlfriend would have given at trial, nor did he proffer the
police report or medical records to demonstrate how they would have bolstered
A-5563-16T1
5
his defense. Accordingly, defendant's claims are no more than bald assertions
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel
entitling defendant to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.
Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999); see also State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311-12
(2014). Defendant's arguments to the contrary are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-5563-16T1
6