NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4212-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY BAULO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted April 17, 2018 – Decided July 12, 2018
Before Judges Fisher and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No.
14-01-0171.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Monique D. Moyse, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kayla
Elizabeth Rowe, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Anthony Baulo pled guilty to fourth-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon (a knife) – arising from a
domestic dispute with his girlfriend – before Judge Verna G.
Leath. After the judge denied defendant's motion to withdraw
his plea, she sentenced him to one-year probation. Defendant
subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief
(PCR) asserting his trial counsel was ineffective because he
failed to properly review his case; failed to investigate a
related Family Court litigation;1 and failed to fully explain
discovery and trial strategy options.2 He also claimed that,
despite his advice, counsel failed to inform the judge that the
pre-trial sentence report listed offenses that were committed by
his cousin, who has the same name.
Judge Leath denied PCR without an evidentiary hearing. In
a written opinion issued with her order, the judge set forth the
factual circumstances surrounding the domestic dispute, which we
need not repeat here, and applied the well-known PCR standard
articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694
(1984) and State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), to find that
defendant failed to set forth a prima facie case of ineffective
1
A final restraining order was issued on the basis of
terroristic threats in one matter, and in another matter,
defendant pled guilty to two counts of contempt of a domestic
violence restraining order resulting in one year of probation.
2
His filing was pro se and he later retained counsel.
2 A-4212-16T4
assistance of counsel. The judge noted that defendant's PCR
arguments were the same contentions she rejected in his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea because they were found to have no
merit. She also pointed out that during his plea allocution,
defendant expressed satisfaction with counsel's representation.
Moreover, the judge cited State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super.
154, 170 (App. Div. 1999), for its proposition that there must
be more than bald allegations of counsel's substandard
investigation, and found that defendant's petition lacked
supporting affidavits setting forth personal knowledge of what a
more thorough investigation would have revealed.
Nevertheless, accepting defendant's allegations as true,
Judge Leath found that defendant failed to show there would have
been a different outcome in the resolution of the unlawful
possession of a weapon charge, especially considering his plea
deal was "extraordinary."3 And since mitigating factor seven –
no history of prior criminal offenses – N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(7),
was applied at sentencing, Judge Leath reasoned the concerns
over the pre-trial sentence report were irrelevant.
3
In accordance with the plea agreement, the remaining charges
of second-degree burglary, third-degree aggravated assault,
third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, and
third-degree terroristic threats, were dismissed.
3 A-4212-16T4
On appeal, defendant argues:
POINT ONE
[DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY
RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT TWO
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE
REMANDED FOR NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY A PCR COURT.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record
and applicable legal standards, defendant's arguments lack
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R.
2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons set
forth by Judge Leath in her cogent decision.
Affirmed.
4 A-4212-16T4