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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2527-18T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EDMOND BENTON, a/k/a
JOE TRUCK, and EDMUND
BENTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 23, 2020 – Decided March 4, 2020
Before Judges Koblitz and Whipple.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Indictment Nos. 14-01-0065
and 14-01-0066, and Accusation No. 14-07-0348.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Craig S. Leeds, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Tasha Marie Kersey, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Edmond Benton appeals from the November 2, 2018 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary
hearing. Defendant was charged under two indictments and an accusation. On
January 15, 2014 defendant was indicted for three counts of fourth-degree
violations of community supervision for life under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d). The
same day, he was charged under a second indictment with third- and fourth-
degree failure to register as a convicted sex offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a)
and 2(d)1. The accusation charged defendant with another fourth-degree
violation of community supervision for life. In July 2014, defendant pled guilty
to some of the charges, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and was
sentenced to concurrent eighteen-month flat sentences for the indictments, and
a consecutive six-month sentence for the accusation.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal, but filed a PCR petition in January
2016, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. After hearing oral argument
and reviewing the record, Judge Ronald Susswein denied the petition both on
procedural grounds and on the merits. Judge Susswein found that defendant had
not established a prima facie case for PCR, and that an evidentiary hearing was
unnecessary because there were no material facts that could not be resolved
A-2527-18T2
2
without reference to the existing record. Applying the Strickland/Fritz1
standard, the judge explained why defendant had not established a prima facie
case requiring an evidentiary hearing nor established that but for counsel's
alleged errors he would not have pled guilty and would have gone to trial.
Because we affirm for the reasons explained in the thorough written
opinion of Judge Susswein, we need not re-address defendant's arguments, but
we add the following comments. We reject defendant's argument he was denied
effective assistance of trial counsel under the standard set forth in Strickland
and Fritz. Defendant has not shown counsel's performance was insufficient
because trial counsel made "errors so serious that counsel was not functioning
as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at
687. Nor has defendant shown that counsel's performance fell below objective
standards of reasonableness, or that he was prejudiced by the deficient
performance he alleges. Id. at 687-88, 692. Defendant's arguments to the
contrary are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
1
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42
(1987).
A-2527-18T2
3