STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EMOTION BLACKWELL (96-05-1060, ATLANTIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2952-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EMOTION BLACKWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted November 20, 2019 - Decided December 12, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz, Gooden Brown, and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 96-05-1060.
Emotion Blackwell, appellant pro se.
Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Mario Christopher Formica, Deputy
First Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Emotion Blackwell appeals from a January 25, 2019 order
denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying him a new trial and
a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) based on newly-discovery evidence.
We affirm.
Following a four-day trial, a jury found defendant guilty of purposeful
murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1; possession
of a handgun without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and possession of a weapon
for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). We affirmed defendant's
conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Blackwell, No. A-7147-97
(App. Div. Jan. 7, 2000).
Defendant subsequently filed PCR petitions in 2001, 2004, and 2011,
which were denied and affirmed on appeal. In affirming defendant's first PCR
denial, we recounted the facts related to his conviction, which we need not repeat
here. State v. Blackwell, No. A-4330-01 (App. Div. June 9, 2003).
This appeal pertains to defendant's motion for a new trial filed with his
fourth PCR petition in 2017. Defendant argued the trial prosecutor withheld
material regarding pending indictments against the State's eyewitness at the time
of trial, which could have been used to impeach the eyewitness. Defendant
claimed this evidence only came to light in November 2016.
The PCR judge denied the motion finding it was time-barred pursuant to
Rule 3:20-2 and denied the petition concluding "there is no showing of newly
A-2952-18T4
2
discovered evidence, only impeachable convictions." Defendant filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the judge denied for the same reasons.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points:
POINT ONE - THE PROSECUTION WITHHELD
IMPORTANT BRADY[1] MATERIAL FROM THE
DEFENSE, WHICH WAS MATERIAL AS IT
WOULD HAVE IMPEACHED THE CREDIBILITY
OF A CRITICAL STATE'S WITNESS, LEADING TO
A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF A DIFFERENT
TRIAL RESULT, THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS
DENIED HIS FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
POINT TWO – THE PCR COURT MISAPPLIED
COURT RULE 3:20-2 AND IMPROPERLY
DEFINED "NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE" IN
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE AND FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF, AND COMPOUNDED ITS ERROR IN
DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, THEREBY VIOLATING HIS
RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR
TRIAL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I,
PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE NEW JERSEY
CONSTITUTION.
1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
A-2952-18T4
3
"[T]he standard of review where there is a denial of a motion for
reconsideration . . . is 'abuse of discretion.'" Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super.
374, 389 (App. Div. 1996) (citation omitted). Reconsideration is not warranted
"merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes
to reargue a motion." State v. Puryear, 441 N.J. Super. 280, 294 (2015)
(quotation omitted) (citation omitted).
The motion judge did not abuse his discretion because the evidence
defendant alleged was newly discovered simply was not. Indeed, in response to
defendant's motion, the State produced an August 22, 1996 letter from the trial
prosecutor to defendant's trial counsel, detailing the indictments related to the
State's eyewitness. Moreover, during oral argument of defendant's first PCR
petition in 2001, his counsel acknowledged the State made these disclosures.
Finally, in our opinion affirming the denial of defendant's first petition, we noted
"defendant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective in . . . failing to cross-
examine [the State's witness] concerning pending charges against him."
For these reasons, the motion judge properly denied reconsideration of the
motion for a new trial and the PCR petition. Defendant's assertions that the State
withheld exculpatory Brady evidence are unsupported by the facts and are
A-2952-18T4
4
without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-2952-18T4
5