STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARC S. GOODSON (02-07-0309, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0757-18T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARC S. GOODSON, a/k/a
TALIB A. GOODSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted February 12, 2020 – Decided March 2, 2020
Before Judges Fuentes and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 02-07-0309.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Howard E. Drucks, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (David M. Galemba, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Marc S. Goodson appeals from an August 29, 2018 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary
hearing. We affirm.
Defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual
assault for an act of sexual penetration against a victim at least thirteen years
old but less than sixteen years old, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c), and two counts of
second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). He
pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree sexual assault as a lesser included
offense of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, third-degree witness
tampering, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(3), and the petty disorderly persons offense of
harassment downgraded from terroristic threats. On June 22, 2004, defendant
was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year prison term, concurrent to the sentence
he was already serving at the time, as well as Megan's Law and parole
supervision for life. The State dismissed the remaining indictments.
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the court through the
summary process available under Rule 2:9-11. In an order dated August 30,
2007, this court remanded the matter for the sentencing judge to ensure
defendant was informed of the potential of civil commitment under the Sexually
Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. State v. Goodson, No. A-
A-0757-18T1
2
3542-04 (App. Div. Aug. 30, 2007). In accordance with our remand, defendant
was resentenced on January 28, 2008.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition on November 14, 2017. In his
supporting certification, defendant contended there was newly discovered
evidence that should have been investigated and presented by his trial attorney.
Defendant argued his attorney's failure to investigate and obtain evidence
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. He also claimed the failure to file
his petition within the five-year time period pursuant to Rule 3:22-12 was "due
to newly discovered evidence obtained while paroled" and constituted excusable
neglect.
The PCR judge determined defendant's petition was procedurally time-
barred. Despite the time-bar, the judge addressed the substantive arguments
raised in defendant's application, and concluded the petition lacked merit and
therefore no evidentiary hearing was warranted.
On appeal, defendant argues the following:
POINT ONE
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF DESPITE THE
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI
AND BY THE N.J. CONST. ART. I, ¶ 10.
A-0757-18T1
3
(a) Defendant's Claims.
(b) Legal Standards Governing Application for Post-
Conviction Relief.
(c) Argument Before the PCR Court.
(d) The PCR Court's Rulings.
(e) The PCR Court Erred in Ruling that Defendant's
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was Time-
Barred.
(f) The PCR Court Erred in Rejecting Defendant's
Claim that Defendant was Denied Effective
Assistance of Counsel When Trial Counsel 1)
Failed to Review the DNA Report with
Defendant; 2) Failed to Apprise Defendant of the
Evidential Significance of the DNA Report; 3)
Indicated that he had Lost the DNA Report but
Would not Solicit Another Copy; 4) Indicated
that he Would not Cross-Examine [the minor
victim] on the Basis of the DNA Test; 5) and
Stated the DNA Test Would not be Admitted as
Evidence.
(g) The PCR Court Erred in Rejecting Defendant's
Claim that Defendant was Denied Effective
Assistance of Counsel Because of Trial Counsel's
Failure to Conduct Effective Pre-Trial
Investigation.
(h) The PCR Court Erred in Rejecting Defendant's
Claim that Trial Counsel's Failures Regarding
Pre-Trial Discovery, Investigation, and
Disclosures to his Client Rendered Defendant's
Plea Involuntary.
A-0757-18T1
4
(i) The PCR Court Erred in not Finding That the
Errors of his Trial Counsel Cumulatively
Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
POINT TWO
THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS
OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL
COUNSEL.
We need not address defendant's substantive arguments on appeal because
we agree with the PCR judge that defendant's petition was time-barred in
accordance with Rule 3:22-12(a)(1). The PCR petition was filed in November
2017. Defendant's judgment of conviction was entered on June 22, 2004. Even
using the date of defendant's subsequent resentencing, January 30, 2008,1
defendant's petition was filed well-beyond the five-year period.
The five-year time bar may be relaxed only under the specified
circumstances set forth in Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)(A). A late filing may be
considered if the petition itself shows excusable neglect for the late filing and
that a fundamental injustice will result if defendant's claims are not considered
on the merits. See State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 400 (App. Div. 2013).
1
The date of the judgment of conviction controls even in the event of
subsequent sentencing proceedings. See State v. Cann, 342 N.J. Super. 93, 102
(App. Div. 2001).
A-0757-18T1
5
Here, we agree with the PCR judge that none of the exceptions applied to relax
the five-year time-bar.
Defendant failed to establish excusable neglect justifying his delay in
filing the PCR petition. Nor did he demonstrate enforcement of the time-bar
will result in a fundamental injustice. The information upon which defendant
relies in support of his PCR application, namely fifty-five witnesses who would
testify defendant was not present at the apartment on the date of the incident ,
was known at the time of trial. Further, the lack of DNA evidence establishing
defendant as the father of the child was legally irrelevant to the charged offense
of sexual assault of a child between ages thirteen and sixteen. Defendant is
required to submit "sufficient competent evidence" to satisfy the standards for
relaxing the rule's time restriction, State v. Brown, 455 N.J. Super. 460, 470
(App. Div. 2018), and he failed to do so.
Having reviewed the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in Judge John
C. Eastlack, Jr.'s thorough August 30, 2018 written decision.
Affirmed.
A-0757-18T1
6