STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IRVIN MORALES (01-08-0292, SUSSEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5690-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
IRVIN MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted September 16, 2020 – Decided November 17, 2020
Before Judges Whipple and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Sussex County, Indictment No. 01-08-0292.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Andrew R. Burroughs, Designated Counsel,
on the briefs).
Francis A. Koch, Sussex County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Shaina Brenner, Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the briefs).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Irvin Morales appeals from the April 17, 2019, denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. He
also appeals from the concurrent denial of his motion to compel DNA testing of
certain crime scene evidence. We affirm.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal.
POINT I.
MR. MORALES WAS ENTITLED TO RELAXATION
OF THE TIME BAR BECAUSE HE HAD SHOWN
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND THAT THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMANDED THAT HIS
CLAIMS BE ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS.
POINT II.
THE PCR COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED MR.
MORALES' MOTION TO TEST THE DNA ON
CIGARETTE BUTTS FOUND AT THE CRIME
SCENE.
In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant raises these additional points.
POINT I.
MR. MORALES WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE JUDGE
CONFORTI RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE HE HAD
MADE A SHOWING THAT THE JUDGE WAS
ACTUALLY BIASED AND/OR HIS ACTIONS
GAVE THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS.
POINT II.
MR. MORALES' PCR COUNSEL PROVIDED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS IT
RELATES TO THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL.
A-5690-18T4
2
The facts underlying defendant's conviction for the victim's death are
stated in our decision on defendant's direct appeal, 1 and need not be repeated at
length herein. Because the basis of the PCR court's dismissal was the time bar
imposed under Rule 3:22-12(a), we focus on the relevant procedural history.
On November 28, 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(3), pursuant to Rule 3:9-2. Because he was charged with an
offense then punishable by death, the defendant was not required to provide a
factual basis, so numerous exhibits were offered. Upon receiving that evidence,
Judge Peter Conforti confirmed with defendant that he was freely and
voluntarily entering his plea of guilty with the full knowledge and advice of his
counsel, and the defendant acknowledged that no one was pressuring him to
plead guilty. The court then accepted the defendant's guilty plea.
Defendant was sentenced in February 2006 to a thirty-year aggregate
prison term subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. We
1
State v. Morales, No. A-6138-09T4 (App. Div. December 16, 2013).
A-5690-18T4
3
affirmed his conviction and sentence, and certification 2 was denied in June
2014.3
In June 2015, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, and in August 2015
the court granted his request for assignment of counsel. A month later, the court
also granted the Office of the Public Defender's request for 120 days from
assignment to file an amended petition. Thereafter, two lawyers were assigned
2
State v. Morales, 218 N.J. 275 (2014).
3
Extensive post-judgment litigation followed defendant's conviction. In July 2009,
more than three years after the entry of the judgment, defendant moved to file an appeal
as within time. The motion was returned unfiled. Three months later, in October 2009,
defendant filed a certification in support of a motion to file out of time, dated June 26,
2009. That motion was returned to him unfiled. In November 2009, defendant submitted
a certification in support of his motion to proceed as an indigent. A few weeks later, the
Office of the Public Defender advised defendant he was out of time to file an appeal and
advised him he could file a petition for PCR. That December, defendant filed a Notice
of Appeal, a Criminal Case Information Statement, a Notice of Motion for Leave to
Appeal as Indigent, an Indigency Certification, and a Certification of Service. In August
2010, defendant filed another Certification in Support of his Motions for Leave to Appeal
as Within Time; for the Assignment of Counsel; and for Transcripts.
In August 2011, we granted defendant's motion to file his appeal as within time.
In January 2012, defendant filed a Notice of Motion to Remand for a State v. Coon, 314
N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div. 1998), hearing and to Relieve the Public Defender as Counsel,
which we granted. The hearing was held on April 18, 2012, before Judge Conforti, and
defendant was assigned a new public defender.
After resolving the defendant's representation issues, on July 26, 2012, we
removed defendant's appeal from the Excessive Sentence Calendar and placed it on the
plenary docket and entered a Scheduling Order on August 1, 2012. On December 16,
2013, we affirmed defendant's conviction.
A-5690-18T4
4
in succession by the Public Defender's Office to represent defendant, and Judge
Conforti conducted dozens of Case Management Conferences and granted
liberal adjournments to confer, conduct investigations, and to ensure defendant's
participation in proceedings via remote appearances from New Hampshire .
On January 5, 2017, through counsel, defendant moved to recuse Judge
Conforti, and in February 2018, moved to compel DNA testing of cigarette butts
from the area around the crime scene. Defendant's petition and the two motions
were then scheduled, and defendant was ordered to be present for the hearing.
On April 17, 2019, after hearing oral argument from counsel and defendant, the
court denied the motion to recuse and denied defendant's motion to compel DNA
testing. Finally, the court denied the PCR petition without an evidentiary
hearing because it was time-barred. This appeal followed.
Having conducted a de novo review, we reject defendant's arguments; we
agree that defendant's petition was time-barred, and defendant made no showing
of excusable neglect. Moreover, defendant made no showing that enforcement
of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice. Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)
precludes PCR petitions filed more than five years after entry of a judgment of
conviction unless the delay was "due to defendant's excusable neglect and . . .
there is a reasonable probability that if the defendant's factual assertions were
A-5690-18T4
5
found to be true enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental
injustice." Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he time bar should be relaxed
only 'under exceptional circumstances' because '[a]s time passes, justice
becomes more elusive and the necessity for preserving finality and certainty of
judgments increases.'" State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 594 (2002) (second
alteration in original) (quoting State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 52 (1997)). When
a first PCR petition is filed more than five years after the date of entry of the
judgment of conviction, the PCR court should examine the timeliness of the
petition, and defendant must submit 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).
To establish "excusable neglect," a defendant must demonstrate "more
than simply . . . a plausible explanation for a failure to file a timely PCR
petition." State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149, 159 (App. Div. 2009). Factors
to be considered include "the extent and cause of the delay, the prejudice to the
State, and the importance of the [defendant's] claim in determining whether
there has been an 'injustice' sufficient to relax the time limits." Afanador, 151
N.J. at 52 (quoting State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 580 (1992)).
A-5690-18T4
6
Defendant was sentenced on February 3, 2006. His petition for PCR was
filed on June 15, 2015, more than four years beyond the five-year time limit.
Defendant contends that there was excusable neglect for the late filing because
he was serving his New Jersey sentence in New Hampshire4 and was pursuing
his direct appeal.
We reject these arguments. Defendant was housed in New Hampshire
after he requested a transfer; however, the assertion he was incapable of
pursuing post-judgment legal remedies from there is belied by the extensive
record of post-judgment litigation he conducted. In his pro se petition he
asserted he was actively engaged in challenging his conviction on direct appeal.
However, we have long rejected the argument that a direct appeal tolls the
restrictions of Rule 3:22-12. State v. Dillard, 208 N.J. Super. 722, 727 (App.
Div. 1986). Moreover, the Public Defender's Office advised him as early as
November 24, 2009, that he could file a petition for PCR.
Defendant argues the court erred when it determined the motions without
the submission of briefs. We reject this argument as well. During oral argument
at the PCR hearing on April 17, 2019, Judge Conforti stated, "I gave counsel for
the defendant . . . an additional four months to, I believe, to submit an amended
4
Defendant requested a transfer to New Hampshire to be near his family.
A-5690-18T4
7
petition to address relaxation of the five-year ban." There is no record that an
amended petition was ever filed despite the opportunity, and indeed, the
suggestion for defendant to do so.
Defendant has also failed to show a reasonable probability that
enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice. Defendant
asserts that he did not commit the offense and his attorney did not investigate .
He claims he only pleaded guilty because he was afraid of the death penalty.
Despite having entered a guilty plea, which he acknowledged under oath as free
and voluntary, he now asserts a third person killed the victim. This allegation
is the basis of his unsuccessful motion to have cigarette butts, which were
located at the scene where the victim's body was discovered, tested to see if
DNA matched the third person he identified.
N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32(a)(d)(4) mandates what factors must be
demonstrated for the court to grant an application for post-conviction DNA
testing: "The court shall not grant the motion for DNA testing unless, after
conducting a hearing, it determines that . . . the eligible person has made a prima
facie showing that the evidence sought to be tested is material to the issue of the
eligible person's identity as the offender[.]"
A-5690-18T4
8
Judge Conforti found that the cigarette butts were located in a public area
near the victim's body. The defendant's request for DNA testing was denied, the
judge stated, because testing would not exculpate the defendant if the butts did
not contain his DNA. We agree that defendant's request therefore does not meet
the standard of the statute, and affirm Judge Conforti's decision to reject the
petition for DNA testing of the cigarette butts.
Finally, there was no showing that required an evidentiary hearing on
defendant's PCR petition. A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he
establishes a prima facie case in support of the PCR petition. R. 3:22-10(b). To
establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy a
two-part test: (1) "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not
functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment,"
and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987).
Defendant's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-5690-18T4
9