NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0674-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHN MCNEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________
Submitted November 17, 2016 – Decided March 20, 2017
Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No.
10-01-0082.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Marc A.
Festa, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the June 12, 2014 Law Division order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an
evidentiary hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I
In 2011, defendant pled guilty to third-degree distribution
of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of school
property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; third-degree resisting arrest,
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3); and fourth-degree aggravated assault
upon a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-9(b)(5)(a). He was
sentenced to an aggregate four-year term of imprisonment, with a
two-year period of parole ineligibility, to run consecutively
with a sentence he was then serving. Defendant did not file a
direct appeal from his convictions or sentence.
In 2012, defendant filed a PCR petition. Designated
counsel filed a brief, which was not attached, but we surmise
from the record defendant argued plea counsel was ineffective
for withdrawing a motion to suppress evidence contrary to
defendant's wishes. In that motion, defendant contended
evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant must be suppressed
because the warrant was fatally defective. We further discern
defendant included in his petition a request to withdraw his
guilty plea. On June 12, 2014, Judge Marilyn C. Clark denied
defendant's petition.
2
A-0674-14T1
On appeal, defendant presents the following issues for our
consideration:
POINT I – THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT
TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS
GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1, PAR.
10 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION.
POINT II – THE PLEA SHOULD BE VACATED
BECAUSE THE FACTUAL BASIS WAS CONFUSING AND
GLARINGLY INCONSISTENT.
POINT III – THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE GRANTED
RELIEF OR THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR
AN EVIDENTIAL HEARING.
As he did before the trial court, defendant argues counsel
was ineffective for advising him to withdraw a meritorious
motion to suppress evidence, which had been seized as the result
of a hopelessly flawed search warrant. He also contends his
guilty plea should be vacated because the factual basis for his
plea was "confusing" and "inconsistent." Finally, he contends
the PCR judge erred by failing to order an evidentiary hearing
on his claim counsel was ineffective. A brief summary of what
occurred before defendant pled guilty is necessary to put the
issues in perspective.
Defendant was charged with twenty drug-related offenses.
In addition to other charges and those to which he pled guilty,
defendant was indicted for first-degree leader of a narcotics
trafficking network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3; second-degree employing a
3
A-0674-14T1
juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5; and second-degree possession with intent to
distribute controlled dangerous substances within 500 feet of a
public park, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a), and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6. At the time he pled, defendant had eleven
indictable and numerous disorderly persons convictions; most of
his convictions were drug-related.
Some of the new charges stemmed from the seizure of
controlled dangerous substances from a residence; these charges
were the subject of the suppression motion, in which defendant
challenged the legality of the search warrant. Before the
motion was argued, the State made a plea offer that defendant
serve an eight-year term of imprisonment, with a five-year
period of parole ineligibility, to run consecutively to the
sentence defendant was then serving. At that time defendant was
serving an eight-year term of imprisonment, with a four-year
parole ineligibility period. Defendant rejected the State's
offer.
After the motion was partially argued, Judge Clark, who was
not only the PCR judge but also the judge who handled the
suppression motion and presided over the plea hearing, advised
the parties she believed the search warrant had "very serious
issues." Defendant was present when the judge made this
4
A-0674-14T1
comment. However, the judge further noted that, even if the
evidence recovered from the search warrant were suppressed, a
number of charges would still remain. Continued argument on the
matter was adjourned for approximately two weeks.
When the parties returned to complete oral argument, they
advised the court defendant accepted a plea offer in which the
State would recommend a four-year term of imprisonment, with a
two-year parole ineligibility period, to run consecutively to
the sentence defendant was then serving, and all other counts
would be dismissed.
During the plea colloquy, defendant stated, on the date in
question, he was selling heroin on a street corner. The street
corner was within 1000 feet of a public school. Specifically,
he arranged for a "stash" of heroin to be brought to him to
sell, and gave the heroin to two juveniles to store nearby.
However, defendant admitted such heroin remained under his
possession and control. At one point, at defendant's direction,
one of the juveniles made a sale of the heroin. Defendant
admitted the juvenile provided him with the proceeds from the
sale. Finally, defendant admitted to resisting arrest and, in
the course of doing so, kicked and swung at the police officers.
While probing defendant about his decision to plead guilty,
the judge asked, "And you understand that while I'm informed
5
A-0674-14T1
that you are pleading, and are withdrawing your motion[], I am
telling you I would have suppressed the search warrant. Do you
understand that?" Defendant replied, "Yes."
In her decision denying defendant's petition on the ground
counsel was ineffective, Judge Clark stated:
I do not find that there has been [a]
sufficient basis to justify [an evidentiary]
hearing. I do not believe there is any
reasonable probability that a hearing would
be successful. . . .
I basically told everyone [the search
warrant] was going to be suppressed. But a
search warrant that has a defect does not
justify assaults on police officers. That
is a whole separate matter, even though it
is connected to the search warrant. And he
pled guilty to those.
[Defense counsel] indicated he was
withdrawing the [suppression motion] because
[of] the [c]ourt's comments on the legal
issues that existed and the renegotiation
which far reduced his custodial exposure,
resulted in the attorney saying we're not
going to pursue the [m]otions anymore.
I have no reason to believe Mr. McNeal was
telling [defense counsel] to pursue motions
which I had already said as to the search
warrant [motion], was going to be
successful. And because of that, the plea
renegotiation took place. . . .
[This is a plea] agreement that very
substantially benefitted defendant. . . .
[T]he search warrant in my opinion was
defective. The rest of the evidence was
not. And the rest of the evidence covered a
great deal of, well the rest of the case
6
A-0674-14T1
involved a great deal of inculpatory
evidence against his defendant.
I believe the four with the two resolution
was extremely fair. The State could have
sought a . . . higher sentence even without
the search warrant. There [was]
distribution within a thousand feet of a
school, employing a juvenile which is ten
years with five without parole . . .
potentially consecutively. . . .
So, based upon everything that I have gone
through, I believe that there was effective
assistance of counsel.
Judge Clark rejected defendant's request to withdraw his
guilty plea, noting defendant failed to assert a colorable claim
of innocence, see State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 158 (2009), and
demonstrate his conviction was manifestly unjust, see id. at
156.
II
The standard for determining whether counsel's performance
was ineffective for purposes of the Sixth Amendment was
formulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, l04 S. Ct.
2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court
in State v. Fritz, l05 N.J. 42 (l987). In order to prevail on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must meet
a two-prong test establishing: (l) counsel made errors so
egregious he or she was not functioning effectively as
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
7
A-0674-14T1
Constitution; and (2) there exists a "reasonable probability
that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different." Strickland, supra, 466
U.S. at 687, 694, l04 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693,
698.
After reviewing the record in light of the contentions
advanced on appeal, we conclude defendant's argument counsel was
ineffective is devoid of merit. We affirm for substantially the
same reasons expressed by Judge Clark in her well-reasoned oral
decision of June 12, 2014. Further, the PCR court correctly
concluded there was no basis to order an evidentiary hearing.
See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).
Defendant's contention his plea must be vacated on the
ground his factual basis was confusing and inconsistent is
similarly without merit and does not warrant discussion in a
written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
8
A-0674-14T1