State of New Jersey v. Thaddeus T. Reevey ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1582-21
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
THADDEUS T. REEVEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted December 11, 2023 – Decided January 22, 2024
Before Judges Gilson and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 12-09-
1583.
Bailey & Toraya, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Adam
W. Toraya, on the brief).
Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Monica Lucinda do Outeiro,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Thaddeus T. Reevey appeals from an order denying his petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR). He contends that he was entitled to an
evidentiary hearing concerning his trial counsel's alleged ineffective assistance.
He also argues that he is entitled to a new PCR proceeding because his PCR
counsel was ineffective. Discerning no merit in those arguments, we affirm.
I.
On November 8, 2011, Eric Freeman and Aaron Bray were walking on a
street in Asbury Park. As they walked along, they saw two other men walking.
One of the other men was wearing a black jacket, had facial hair, and had long
braids tied up in a bun on the back of his head. As that man got closer to Freeman
and Bray, he pulled out a handgun and shot Freeman several times.
Bray and Freeman then ran away. Shortly thereafter, Freeman was found
lying just inside the entrance of a nearby apartment building. He was taken to
the hospital and pronounced dead. A subsequent autopsy disclosed that Freeman
died of two gunshot wounds to his chest.
As part of the investigation of the shooting, police located and obtained
copies of videos from two surveillance cameras in the area of the shooting. The
videos did not capture the shooting itself, but they did show Freeman and Bray
walking, as well as two other men walking. One of the other men depicted in
A-1582-21
2
the video was wearing a black jacket and the other man was wearing a gray
hooded sweatshirt. The man wearing the black jacket walked out of the view of
the camera towards Freeman and Bray. Shortly thereafter, the man wearing the
gray sweatshirt turned and ran away.
Police also located and interviewed Bray. Bray identified defendant as
the shooter from a photo array.
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1),
and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-4(a). A trial was conducted in February and March of 2016. At trial, the
jury viewed the videos from the surveillance cameras, heard testimony from
Bray, including his in-court identification of defendant, and considered other
evidence. The jury then convicted defendant of both charges.
In August 2016, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of
forty-five years with periods of parole ineligibility and parole supervision as
prescribed by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
Defendant appealed, but we affirmed his convictions. State v. Reevey, No. A-
1018-16 (App. Div. Mar. 25, 2019). The Supreme Court denied defendant's
petition for certification. State v. Reevey, 239 N.J. 499 (2019).
A-1582-21
3
In January 2020, defendant filed a PCR petition. He was assigned counsel,
who assisted defendant in filing an amended petition and prepared a brief in
support of defendant's petition. Thereafter, a judge heard oral argument. On
December 2, 2021, the PCR judge issued a written opinion and order denying
defendant's PCR petition. Defendant now appeals.
II.
On this appeal, defendant makes two arguments, which he articulates as
follows:
POINT I – THE [PCR] COURT ERRED IN DENYING
THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR]
WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS
CONTENTIONS THAT HE RECEIVED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL . . . .
. . . DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS TRIAL
ATTORNEY FAILED [TO] EFFECTIVELY CROSS[-
]EXAMINE AARON BRAY, WHO WAS THE ONLY
WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT
TRIAL[.]
POINT II – DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF [PCR] COUNSEL[.]
When a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, appellate
courts review the denial of a PCR petition de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J.
391, 420-21 (2004); State v. Lawrence, 463 N.J. Super. 518, 522 (App. Div.
A-1582-21
4
2020). A PCR court's decision to proceed without an evidentiary hearing is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Vanness, 474 N.J. Super. 609, 623
(App. Div. 2023) (citing State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div.
2013)).
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
satisfy the two-prong Strickland test: (1) "counsel made errors so serious that
counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment," and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,
58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-prong test in New Jersey).
A petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State
v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013). Rule 3:22-10(b) provides that a defendant
is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition only if he or she
establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, material issues of disputed fact
cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record, and an evidentiary
hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief. Id. at 354 (quoting R. 3:22-
10(b)). The PCR court should grant an evidentiary hearing "if a defendant has
presented a prima facie claim in support of [PCR]." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.
451, 462 (1992).
A-1582-21
5
A. Defendant's Allegations Concerning the Ineffective Assistance of
Trial Counsel.
Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in providing him
assistance at trial. He primarily focuses on the contention that his trial counsel
did not effectively cross-examine Bray. Specifically, he argues that his trial
counsel should have pressed Bray on the inconsistencies in Bray's statements to
the police.
At trial, defense counsel cross-examined Bray. Defendant has failed to
present any evidence that that cross-examination was ineffective because
defense counsel did not press certain inconsistencies. While defendant has
alleged that Bray gave inconsistent statements, he has not demonstrated that
pressing Bray on those inconsistencies would have resulted in an acquittal by
the jury. In short, defendant asks us to speculate, and he relies on bald
contentions that are not supported by the record. State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298,
311-12 (2014) (noting that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not
entitle a PCR petitioner to an evidentiary hearing where petitioner makes "bald
assertions" and does not allege "facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged
substandard performance" (quoting Porter, 216 N.J. at 355)); Porter, 216 N.J. at
355 (noting that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are "'too vague, conclusory, or
A-1582-21
6
speculative'" and not supported by "specific facts and evidence" (quoting State
v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997))); State v. Young, 474 N.J. Super. 507, 516
(App. Div. 2023) (explaining that "[b]ald assertions are insufficient to establish
a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel").
B. Defendant's Allegations Concerning Ineffective Assistance of PCR
Counsel.
Defendant also argues that his PCR counsel should have better organized
the arguments he presented and that his PCR counsel failed to accurately present
his arguments. Defendant has failed, however, to demonstrate that a
reorganization or rewording of his arguments would have led to a different
result. In short, defendant is not entitled to a new PCR proceeding because he
received adequate assistance of counsel and a thorough review by the PCR court.
Affirmed.
A-1582-21
7