State of New Jersey v. Antoine Dennis ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0579-21
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTOINE DENNIS, a/k/a
ANTOINE DAVIS, ANTHONY
DAVIS, and ANTWON DENNIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted January 8, 2024 – Decided January 12, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
06-11-2533.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Ashlea De An Newman, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Antoine Dennis appeals from the denial of his second petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
In a prior appeal, we detailed the facts involving defendant's participation
in the murder of Saahron Jones and subsequent conviction by a jury of: second-
degree conspiracy to commit armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:15-1; first-
degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(1) and/or (2); first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); third-
degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); second-degree
possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and second-
degree certain persons not to possess weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). State v.
Dennis, No. A-2956-10 (App. Div. Nov. 29, 2012) (slip op. at 1). We affirmed
defendant's convictions and, except for a remand to address improperly merged
sentences, we also affirmed his sentence, which included life imprisonment
subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a), on the murder count
and consecutive sentences imposed for other offenses. Id. at 2-3.
In 2013, defendant filed his first PCR petition alleging various claims of
ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel. On March 27, 2015, the
judge who presided over defendant's trial considered his PCR petition and issued
A-0579-21
2
a detailed written opinion rejecting his claims. On appeal, defendant argued
there should have been an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed the trial judge's
finding defendant had not demonstrated a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance of counsel to warrant a hearing, and concluded defendant's arguments
lacked merit. State v. Dennis, No. A-5191-14 (App. Div. July 14, 2017) (slip
op. at 6).
On June 13, 2018, defendant filed his second PCR petition alleging claims
of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including that both failed
to challenge the validity of his arrest warrant. Defendant alleged police obtained
a search warrant for his home by appearing before the trial judge, but the arrest
warrant, which was signed by a detective as the complainant and a sergeant who
administered the oath, did not indicate it was authorized in the presence of a
judge. Therefore, defendant argued the arrest warrant was "defective and
invalid" because it was not "sworn and subscribed" before a judge, pursuant to
Rule 3:2-3(b). And, because the arrest warrant was invalid the evidence
obtained by it was inadmissible.
A second PCR judge heard defendant's petition and issued a written
opinion denying it. He concluded the petition was time-barred pursuant to Rule
3:22-12(a)(2)(A), because defendant's first PCR petition was denied on March
A-0579-21
3
27, 2015, and the second petition was filed "on June 13, 2018, over three years
after the denial of his first petition" and well beyond the one-year time-bar
imposed by the Rule. The judge noted Rule 1:3-4(c) prohibits enlargement of
the one-year time limit imposed by Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A). Further, the Supreme
Court held enlargement of the time limits in the Rule "is absolutely prohibited"
and cannot be relaxed under Rule 1:1-2. Aujero v. Cirelli, 110 N.J. 566, 577
(1988).1 Moreover, defendant's second petition was barred because it did not
assert any newly recognized constitutional right or an "ineffectiveness claim . . .
based on evidence or information that could not have been discovered earlier
through the exercise of reasonable diligence."
Defendant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT ONE – THE PCR COURT IMPROPERLY
DENIED DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HE
RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF HIS
PLEA COUNSEL WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL
PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS FOR
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,
1
See also State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 293-94 (App. Div. 2018), for
a detailed discussion of the Supreme Court's adoption of revised Rules in 2009
making clear the one-year time limitation for a second PCR claim, and the
exceptions to the time limitation, which the second PCR judge addressed and
found did not apply here.
A-0579-21
4
EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS
FOR [PCR].
B. THE PCR COURT IMPROPERLY
DENIED DEFENDANT'S PETITION ON
PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, AS THE
TIMEBAR SET FORTH IN [RULE] 3[:]22-
12(A)(2) SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELAXED
TO PREVENT A FUNDAMENTAL
INJUSTICE.
C. THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING
DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ON THE CLAIM THAT HIS APPELLATE PCR
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO RAISE THE CLAIM THAT HIS
POLICE STATEMENT RESULTED FROM A
DEFECTIVE ARREST WARRANT.
D. THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING
DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ON THE CLAIM THAT HIS APPELLATE PCR
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO RAISE THE CLAIM THAT PCR
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO ARGUE THAT TRIAL
COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE AT THE
MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL WAS DEFICIENT.
A PCR petition is neither "a substitute for direct appeal . . . nor an
opportunity to relitigate cases already decided on the merits . . . ." State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992) (citation omitted). When a petitioner claims
ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, they must show counsel's
A-0579-21
5
performance was deficient, and but for those errors, they would not have been
convicted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984); State
v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987). There is a strong presumption counsel "rendered
adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of
reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.
A defendant is also entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel,
but "appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every
nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant . . . ." State v. Morrison, 215 N.J.
Super. 540, 549 (App. Div. 1987) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983)).
Appellate counsel will not be found ineffective for failure to raise a meritless
issue or errors an appellate court would deem harmless. See State v. Echols,
199 N.J. 344, 361 (2009).
We conduct a de novo review where a PCR court does not hold an
evidentiary hearing. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). A defendant is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they present a prima facie case supporting
PCR, the court determines there are material issues of fact that cannot be
resolved based on the existing record, and the court finds an evidentiary hearing
is required to resolve the claims presented. R. 3:22-10(b); see also State v.
Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013) (citing R. 3:22-10(b)).
A-0579-21
6
Having considered defendant's claims, the record, and applicable legal
principles, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the PCR judge's thorough and
well written opinion. We add the following comments.
Defendant's claim appellate PCR counsel was ineffective for not
challenging the validity of the arrest warrant ignores the fact the warrant
complied with Rule 3:2-1(a)(1). The Rule provides: "All complaints . . . shall
be by certification or on oath before a judge or other person authorized by
N.J.S.A. 2B:12-21 to take complaints." As we noted, the arrest warrant was
submitted by certification and contained the signatures of the complaining
detective and the sergeant who administered the oath. It is undisputed the trial
judge also signed the warrant. The fact the search warrant was obtained by the
other method permitted under Rule 3:2-1(a)(1), namely, by oath before the judge
rather than certification, did not invalidate the arrest warrant.
Therefore, appellate PCR counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise
this meritless argument. An evidentiary hearing was not required because there
was no material issue of fact, but a misinterpretation of law on defendant's part;
underscoring that defendant's petition did not assert a basis to override the time
limitation imposed by Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A). The remainder of defendant's
A-0579-21
7
arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0579-21
8