State of New Jersey v. Carl Holdren ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0173-22
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CARL HOLDREN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted January 18, 2024 – Decided February 6, 2024
Before Judges Accurso and Walcott-Henderson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 07-
09-0125.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Amira Rahman Scurato, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Debra Grace Simms, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Carl Holdren appeals from the July 21, 2022 order dismissing
his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), contending he established
a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary
hearing. We disagree and affirm for the reasons expressed in Judge
Guadagno's thirty-page, meticulously detailed written opinion of July 21,
2022.
Holdren was convicted by a jury of murder, racketeering, two counts of
conspiracy to commit murder, three counts of possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose, and two counts of attempted murder and sentenced to life in
prison plus forty years, subject to ninety-two and one-half years of parole
ineligibility. We affirmed Holdren's convictions and sentence, State v.
Holdren, A-1056-14 (App. Div. Sept. 1, 2017), and the Supreme Court denied
his petition for certification, 232 N.J. 300 (2018).
Holdren's first petition for PCR, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel based on the inadequate investigation of his trial counsel, counsel's
failure to adequately consult with Holdren about trial strategy, counsel's failure
to call two witnesses who witnessed the shooting, and complaints about his
sentence, was denied on October 4, 2019. We affirmed the PCR court's
decision in State v. Holdren, A-1388-19 (App. Div. March 24, 2021).
A-0173-22
2
While Holdren's appeal from the denial of his first PCR was pending, he
timely filed his second PCR petition on September 21, 2020. As Judge
Guadagno explained, however, the court mistakenly dismissed that petition
without prejudice, apparently in the belief that Rule 3:22-6A(2) applied to an
appeal of a first PCR petition, which by its terms applies only to direct
appeals.
Holdren re-filed his second petition on August 5, 2021, more than ninety
days after our judgment affirming the denial of his first petition, and well over
a year beyond the trial court's denial of that first petition, making the petition
untimely under both Rule 3:22-6A(2), the Rule pursuant to which the court
dismissed the petition without prejudice, and Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(C). See State
v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 293 (App. Div. 2018) (explaining the one-
year limitation for second or subsequent petitions in Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(C) was
made non-relaxable by the Supreme Court in Rule 1:3-4(c) in 2009).
Judge Guadagno nevertheless analyzed Holdren's second petition on the
merits, noting as he did so that Holdren's claims, although ostensibly directed
to the alleged ineffective assistance of his first PCR counsel, were in fact
directed to the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; claims that
would ordinarily be procedurally barred on a second petition. See R. 3:22-
A-0173-22
3
4(a). Judge Guadagno dismissed Holdren's claims that his first PCR counsel
was ineffective in not arguing his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
have argued the trial court erred in its application of aggravating and
mitigating factors in imposing sentence, in failing to have objected to specific
jury charges, in failing to have presented an exemplar of Holdren's voice to
counter the State's evidence of what it asserted was Holdren's voice on wire
taps, and in failing to have voir dired the jury to ascertain whether prospective
jurors had read any news articles about the case, finding all patently without
merit.
Judge Guadagno analyzed each of Holdren's arguments, carefully
explaining why none would have established a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance entitling Holdren to an evidentiary hearing, see State v. Marshall,
148 N.J. 89, 158 (1992), and that PCR counsel could not be deemed ineffective
for failing to have raised unmeritorious arguments, see State v. Worlock, 117
N.J. 596, 625 (1990) ("The failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does
not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel."). Finally, the judge rejected
Holdren's claim that his first PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to have
the trial court resentence him in accordance with the Supreme Court's remand,
A-0173-22
4
because the Court did not remand defendant's case for resentencing, but that of
his co-defendant Valdo Thompson. See Holdren, 232 N.J. 370 (2018).
Holdren appeals, reprising the arguments he made to the trial court.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with Judge Guadagno that none of
Holdren's claims has any merit. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We have nothing to add
to his thorough and thoughtful opinion.
Affirmed.
A-0173-22
5