STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIE D. JARVIS (12-09-1305, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3871-16T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIE D. JARVIS, a/k/a
WHITE JARVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted September 13, 2018 – Decided October 22, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 12-09-
1305.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (William P. Welaj, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the November 16, 2016 order denying his petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm for the well-reasoned written
opinion of Judge Colleen Flynn.
Defendant pled guilty in 2013 to possession of a weapon for an unlawful
purpose after admitting in court he used a handgun in connection with a drug
purchase that turned into a robbery. In his petition, he asserted ineffective
assistance of counsel on a number of bases including that his lawyer did not
conduct an adequate investigation, did not pursue a speedy trial or file motions
to challenge defendant's out of court identification. He also asserted the court
should have vacated his guilty plea. After carefully analyzing every argument
raised, Judge Flynn concluded defendant had not met the Strickland/Fritz1
standard and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. She denied the petition
and this appeal followed.
On appeal defendant argues the following.
POINT I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF SINCE AN INSUFFICIENT
FACTUAL BASIS WAS ELICITED FROM THE
1
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94 (1987).
A-3871-16T1
2
DEFENDANT AT THE TIME HE ENTERED HIS
GUILTY PLEA TO POSSESSION OF A WEAPON
FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.
POINT II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING
HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY
ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED
TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL.
Because we adopt the reasoning of the PCR court we need not fully re-
address defendant's arguments, but we add the following comments. We reject
defendant's argument he was denied effective assistance of counsel under the
standard set forth in Strickland/Fritz. Defendant has not shown counsel's
performance was insufficient because counsel made "errors so serious that
counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Nor has defendant shown he was
prejudiced by the deficient performance, or that counsel's performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 687-88.
We reject defendant's claim he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. A
court reviewing PCR petitions based on claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel should only grant an evidentiary hearing if a defendant establishes a
prima facie showing in support of the relief requested. State v. Preciose, 129
A-3871-16T1
3
N.J. 451, 462 (1992); R. 3:22-10(e).
We need not address defendant's remaining arguments as these arguments
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-3871-16T1
4