STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS R. MARROQUIN (13-01-0016, BERGEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1571-17T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CARLOS R. MARROQUIN, a/k/a
MARROQUIN, CARLOS RENE
MARROQUIN BARRERA, and
CARLOS RENE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted October 17, 2018 - Decided October 30, 2018
Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 13-01-0016.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Anthony J. Vecchio, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sara M. Quigley, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Carlos R. Marroquin appeals from the denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief (PCR), contending he established a prima facie case of
ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing. Because
Judge Guida was correct in determining the evidence insufficient to sustain
defendant's burden, we affirm.
Following weeks of State Police surveillance, defendant was arrested with
three other men in a warehouse in Metuchen where police found forty kilograms
of cocaine and over a million dollars secreted in hidden compartments in two
cars and a bobtail tractor. All three of defendant's confederates testified against
him. They claimed defendant was in charge of the shipping operation, which
moved quantities of cocaine across the country from California to New Jersey.
The jury convicted defendant of first-degree conspiracy to commit money
laundering, second-degree conspiracy to distribute cocaine, first-degree
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, third-degree possession of
cocaine, and first-degree money laundering, and the judge sentenced him to an
aggregate thirty-two years in State prison, sixteen years without parole. State v.
Marroquin, No. A-2887-14 (App. Div. Oct. 26, 2016) (slip op. at 1).
A-1571-17T3
2
We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal,
rejecting, among other points, his arguments that he was harmed by a State
Police detective's testimony that exceeded the bounds of lay opinion and the
expert testimony offered by a special agent of the United States Drug
Enforcement Administration about the purported path of the cocaine across
international borders, as well as the lack of a proper stipulation about the
quantity of the drugs involved, none of which had been argued to the trial court.
Marroquin, slip op. at 2-3, 16-20. Defendant filed a petition for PCR, alleging
his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State Police detective's
testimony and that of the DEA agent, for failing to effectively cross-examine his
confederates, and for failing to object to the admission of the lab report
confirming the substance discovered in defendant's possession was indeed forty
kilograms of cocaine and to challenge the verdict sheet.
Judge Guida denied the petition in a comprehensive opinion from the
bench, addressing each of defendant's claims in considerable detail. Although
deeming defendant's claims of ineffective assistance relating to the testimony of
the State Police detective and the DEA agent, as well as the quantity of drugs
listed in the lab report, as procedurally barred by R. 3:22-5 because we
considered them on direct appeal, Judge Guida nevertheless analyzed, and
A-1571-17T3
3
rejected, each one under the Strickland1 two-prong standard. Particularly as it
relates to trial counsel's failure to have objected to the admission of the lab
report, Judge Guida noted defendant's failure to offer any evidence that the lab
report was "in any way deficient," that "the laboratory analysis was not
performed in accordance with acceptable standards" or that had counsel insisted
on the testimony of the lab technicians, the evidence of defendant's possession
of forty kilograms of cocaine would have been different.
Defendant appeals, raising the following issues:
POINT I.
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING
DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
WHERE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING HIS TRIAL.
A. Trial Counsel was ineffective for not
objecting to Detective Flora's unqualified expert
testimony.
B. Trial Counsel was ineffective for inviting
the prejudicial testimony of Agent Ryan.
C. Trial Counsel was ineffective for not
challenging the laboratory report.
1
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
A-1571-17T3
4
POINT II.
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE NOT BARRED
BY RULE 3:22-4.
POINT III.
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE NOT BARRED
BY RULE 3:22-5.
POINT IV.
THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS OF TRIAL COUNSEL
WARRANT REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTIONS.
Our review of the record convinces us that none of those arguments is of
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). The
issues defendant raises on appeal regarding the testimony of the State's
witnesses were addressed at length in our opinion on defendant's direct appeal
of his conviction and found unavailing. As to defendant's claim regarding his
counsel's failure to object to the admission of the lab report, we agree with the
trial court that defendant offered nothing to suggest how such an objection might
have altered the outcome. Accordingly, we agree no evidentiary hearing was
required as defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance of counsel as to any issue he raised. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.
451, 462-64 (1992).
A-1571-17T3
5
Judge Guida carefully considered each of defendant's claims. We agree
with his finding that defendant failed to demonstrate the performance of his trial
counsel was substandard or that, but for any alleged errors, the result would have
been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of defendant's petition substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge
Guida's oral opinion of October 27, 2017.
Affirmed.
A-1571-17T3
6