State of New Jersey v. Hiten A. Patel ( 2024 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3124-21
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HITEN A. PATEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted October 24, 2023 – Decided February 16, 2024
Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos. 13-04-1262
and 13-08-2190.
Hiten A. Patel, appellant pro se.
William Edward Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Mario Christopher Formica,
Chief Counsel to the Prosecutor, of counsel; Linda
Anne Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Hiten A. Patel was convicted of numerous offenses stemming
from a series of sexual assaults, terroristic threats, and criminal restraints on
seven women in Atlantic City. State v. Patel, No. A-3824-14 (App. Div. Jan.
18, 2017) (slip op. at 2-3). Defendant's modus operandi in committing the
offenses involved soliciting the women, some of whom were prostitutes, for sex,
brandishing a toy gun, and, at times, impersonating a police officer. Id. at 5-15.
He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of forty-six years, with forty-five
years subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Id. at 2. The
conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at 40.
On June 7, 2019, defendant's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition
alleging ineffectiveness of counsel was denied by the PCR Judge, who also was
the trial judge, following a two-day evidentiary hearing. The judge detailed his
reasons in a ninety-three-page letter opinion. We denied defendant's appeal.
State v. Patel, No. A-4877-18 (App. Div. May 12, 2021) (slip op. at 2, 7-8).
While defendant's petition for certification was pending and before it was
eventually denied, State v. Patel, 249 N.J. 106 (2021), defendant filed a second
PCR petition again alleging ineffectiveness of counsel, which also was denied
A-3124-21
2
by the same PCR judge in a May 13, 2022 order,1 for reasons explained in a
thirty-six-page letter opinion.
Before the second PCR petition was denied, a self-represented defendant
filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, repeating an
earlier assertion that the State committed a Brady2 violation by not disclosing
the complete criminal history of the sexual assault victims-witnesses. In a May
23, 2022 order, the PCR judge denied the motion, reasoning:
[T]hat the issue concerning the criminal histories of
witnesses and victims was raised and addressed at trial,
on direct appeal and by your first petition for [PCR].
Specifically, these issues were argued in your first
petition for PCR and your motion for a new
trial/judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.
The [June 7, 2019] letter [opinion] regarding your first
petition for PCR . . . discussed the argument pertaining
to the criminal histories of all victims and found (1) the
argument to be baseless and (2) that trial counsel was
not deficient under the Strickland/Fritz [3] test for
ineffective assistance of counsel. The letter [opinion]
regarding your motion for a new trial/judgment of
1
This order is not the subject of this appeal, nor any other appeal pending before
our court.
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 683 (1984) (to demonstrate
ineffectiveness of counsel, "[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's
performance was deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense."), adopted in State v. Fritz, 105
N.J. 42, 58 (1987).
A-3124-21
3
acquittal notwithstanding the verdict dated January 9,
2014, additionally discussed the cross-examination of
the victims and noted that many of these women were
cross-examined on their convictions, their history of
substance abuse and other anti-social behavior.
Defendant appeals arguing:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED
UPON NEWLY[-]DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,
BRADY DUE PROCESS DISCOVERY
VIOLATIONS AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL ON HIS FIRST [PCR] PETITION
WITHOUT AFFORDING DEFENDANT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS
HIS CONTENTION THAT PCR COUNSEL'S
FAILURE TO RAISE THE POST-CONVICTION
DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL
RECORDS OF THE STATE'S PRIMARY
WITNESSES AGAINST [HIM] DENIED HIM
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION
WARRANTING REVERSAL OF HIS
CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL.
A. There Was No Strategical Reason For PCR
Counsel's Failure To Raise The Brady Violation
Claim On The First PCR Petition.
POINT II
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REVEAL[S]
THE STATE WITHHELD, SUPPRESSED AND
FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
HISTORY OF ITS TESTIFYING WITNESSES.
THUS, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS DUE
A-3124-21
4
PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER
BRADY [AND] ITS PROGENY AND RULE 3:13-3
WARRANTING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL.
A. The Deliberate Suppression, Withholding And
Non-Disclosure Of Evidence By The State Was
A Distinct Pattern Of Misconduct By The State
Prosecutor.
Having considered the arguments, the record, and applicable law, we
conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by
PCR judge in his well-reasoned written decision. We add the following brief
remarks.
There is no reason to disturb the judge's order because it was not "a
miscarriage of justice under the law." State v. Armour, 446 N.J. Super. 295, 305
(App. Div. 2016) (quoting R. 2:10-1). A defendant is permitted to seek a new
trial based on newly discovered evidence at any time. State v. Szemple, 247
N.J. 82, 99 (2021) (citing R. 3:20-2). But here, no new evidence was presented
to support a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we do not consider the three-
prong test that must be satisfied to warrant a new trial based upon newly
discovered evidence. See State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div.
2020) ("[T]o qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new
A-3124-21
5
trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely
cumulative or impeaching or contradictory; (2) discovered since the trial and not
discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) of the sort that would
probably change the jury's verdict if a new trial were granted." (quoting State v.
Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981))). Furthermore, given the absence of new
evidence, there is no basis for defendant's assertion of a Brady violation: the
State failed to disclose "evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates
due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S.
at 87. In sum, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant a new
trial. See Armour, 446 N.J. Super. at 306 (citing State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super.
119, 137 (App. Div. 2000)).
Affirmed.
A-3124-21
6