STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN CASTILLOÂ (06-05-0485, UNION 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4704-15T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JUAN CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted November 9, 2017 – Decided November 27, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Manahan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 06-
05-0485.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (William Welaj, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Thomas K. Isenhour, Acting Union County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Milton S.
Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This matter returns to us after remand. Defendant Juan
Castillo appeals from an order denying his petition for post-
conviction relief (PCR) without oral argument or an evidentiary
hearing. This is defendant's second appeal from a denial of his
PCR. In State v. Castillo, No. A-4022-13 (App. Div. May 23, 2016)
(slip op. at 4), we remanded to "allow the judge to either hear
oral argument and issue a reconsidered decision, or to issue a
statement of reasons why oral argument was denied" per State v.
Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (2012).
In that opinion, we recited the relevant factual and
procedural history which we restate herein. On May 25, 2006,
defendant was indicted and charged with first-degree murder,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) "and/or" (2) (count one); fourth-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) (count two);
and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d) (count three).
The indictment arose from an incident on the evening of
September 25, 2006, in which defendant was involved in a physical
altercation with another patron outside of a bar in Elizabeth.
The victim with whom defendant had been arguing at the bar prior
to the incident died from stab wounds inflicted during the
altercation.
On September 11, 2008, defendant was convicted by a jury on
all three counts. On November 21, 2008, the trial judge sentenced
defendant on the murder charge to forty-five years imprisonment,
2 A-4704-15T4
subject to eighty-five percent parole ineligibility pursuant to
the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a). The judge
then merged counts two and three and imposed a concurrent three-
year term on that offense, as well as appropriate fines and
penalties. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed, but remanded for
merger of the remaining weapons offense with the murder conviction.
State v. Castillo, No. A-3067-08 (App. Div. June 28, 2011) (slip op.
at 21-23), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 600 (2011).
Defendant filed a PCR petition on January 20, 2012, which was
supplemented by appointed counsel. The PCR judge, who was also the
trial and sentencing judge, denied the petition in a written opinion
without oral argument or an evidentiary hearing.
After remand, the PCR judge, who was the original PCR judge,
issued an amended order and opinion denying the PCR without oral
argument. In addressing the reasons for denying oral argument, the
judge stated:
The [c]ourt is mindful of the general
presumption in favor of oral argument for an
initial petition for post-conviction relief.
[Parker, supra, 212 N.J. at 282-83]. In this
case, oral argument would not have been
helpful. In the instant case, defendant fails
to articulate a prima facie case in favor of
relief, and that is clear from a review of the
trial transcript.
We again are constrained to remand since we conclude that the
reasons for eschewing oral argument do not satisfy the Parker
3 A-4704-15T4
paradigm. First, the presumption in favor of oral argument is a
"strong" one, not a "general" one. Second, the conclusory
statement that oral argument "would not have been helpful" fails
to adequately articulate a "statement of reasons that is tailored
to the particular application." Parker, supra, 212 N.J. at 282.
Given that this is the second remand, we exercise original
jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 2:10-5, for the limited purpose of
ordering that oral argument be provided to defendant. As in our
prior opinion, we do not address the substantive arguments raised
on appeal.
Remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
4 A-4704-15T4