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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2258-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHERMAN MILLER, a/k/a
SHERMAN HAMPTON,
and SHERMAN MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted December 1, 2021 – Decided December 28, 2021
Before Judges Gilson and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 17-01-0026.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Cary Shill, Acting Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Special Deputy
Attorney General/Acting Deputy First Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the January 29, 2021 Law Division order denying
his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. On
appeal, defendant raises the following single point for our consideration:
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE CLAIM THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE AT
SENTENCING
We disagree and affirm.
On January 4, 2017, defendant was charged in a twelve-count indictment
with first-degree endangering the welfare of a child by permitting a child to
engage in pornography, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(3) (count one); third-degree
possession or viewing of child pornography, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(b) (count
two); seven counts of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A.
2C:24-4(a)(1) (counts three to nine); third-degree showing obscene material to
a minor, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3(b)(2) (count ten); third-degree failure to notify law
enforcement of access to or use of a computer as required under Megan's Law,
N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(d)(2) (count eleven); and third-degree failure to notify law
enforcement of a change of address as required under Megan's Law, N.J.S.A.
2C:7-2(d)(1) (count twelve).
A-2258-20
2
On February 28, 2017, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to count
one. At the plea hearing, defendant admitted that between December 20 and 25,
2015, he contacted a minor through a social media application and persuaded
the child to engage in a sexual act, which she filmed and shared with defendant.
On May 12, 2017, defendant appeared for sentencing. After reviewing the pre-
sentence report (PSR) with her client, defense counsel told the judge "[t]he
biographical information" was "substantially accurate," but defendant did not
"adopt the State's version of the facts." Defense counsel made no additional
arguments at sentencing. In turn, the prosecutor clarified that although the PSR
indicated there was only one "actual confirmed victim," in fact, "[t]here were
eight confirmed victims." The prosecutor also noted that despite having
previously been incarcerated at Avenel, defendant "seem[ed] to be compelled to
engage in this type of behavior" as evidenced by the fact that "there were
actually [forty] children [to] whom [defendant] was sending unsolicited
photographs of his genitalia, as well as videos of himself masturbating."
The judge sentenced defendant to twelve years' imprisonment, subject to
the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, parole supervision for
life (PSL), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, and Megan's Law compliance in accordance with
the plea agreement. In imposing the sentence, the judge found aggravating
A-2258-20
3
factors three, six, and nine. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3) ("[t]he risk that the
defendant will commit another offense"); N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(6) ("[t]he extent
of the defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses");
and N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9) ("[t]he need for deterring the defendant and others
from violating the law").
In support, the judge relied on defendant's prior criminal history,
consisting of five indictable and five disorderly persons convictions . She also
pointed out that defendant had been subject to Megan's Law registration
requirements "since 1995." Notably, defendant's prior indictable convictions
include aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. The
judge also "examine[d] the record for evidence of [m]itigating [f]actors" but
found none. In that regard, the judge noted defendant was "divorced" with
"three children" but "in arrears in child support in the amount of $10,734." The
judge also stated although defendant "report[ed] having a GED," he had "no
history of stable employment" and "a history of the abuse of illegal drugs"
despite past "treatment for substance abuse disorder." The judge concluded "the
[a]ggravating [f]actors preponderate[d]" given "their quality and nature"
coupled with the absence of any mitigating factors.
A-2258-20
4
Defendant did not file a direct appeal. Instead, he filed a pro se PCR
petition seeking a sentence reduction, asserting "he was not afforded fair
representation." After he was assigned PCR counsel, defendant argued he
received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) because his attorney failed to
argue at sentencing that mitigating factors four and eleven applied. See N.J.S.A.
2C:44-1(b)(4) ("[t]here were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the
defendant's conduct, though failing to establish a defense"); N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1(b)(11) ("[t]he imprisonment of the defendant would entail excessive hardship
to the defendant or the defendant's dependents"). In support, defendant asserted
his troubled upbringing and underlying psychological issues resulting from his
placement in fifty-six different foster homes and enduring physical abuse by his
father supported mitigating factor four. Further, according to defendant,
mitigating factor eleven applied because he has a son who was born with down
syndrome.
Following oral argument, Judge Patricia M. Wild, who was also the
sentencing judge, entered an order on January 29, 2021, denying defendant's
petition. In an oral opinion, the judge reviewed the factual background and
procedural history of the case, applied the governing legal principles, and
concluded defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of IAC. Specifically,
A-2258-20
5
the judge found defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that counsel's performance fell below the objective standard of
reasonableness set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984),
and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 49-53 (1987).
Further, the judge found defendant failed to show that the outcome would
have been different without the purported deficient performance as required
under the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. See State v. DiFrisco, 137
N.J. 434, 456 (1994) (applying the Strickland test "to challenges of guilty pleas
based on [IAC]" (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985))); see also State
v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) ("With respect to both prongs of the
Strickland test, a defendant asserting [IAC] on PCR bears the burden of proving
his or her right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence."). The judge also
concluded defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v.
Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997) ("[I]n determining the propriety of an
evidentiary hearing, the PCR court should ascertain whether the defendant
would be entitled to post-conviction relief if the facts were viewed 'in the light
most favorable to defendant.'" (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463
(1992))).
A-2258-20
6
Specifically, in her lengthy oral opinion, the judge pointed out that
defendant failed to submit a "supporting affidavit or certification to support [his]
factual assertions" and "[i]nstead . . . merely cite[d] to the [PSR] to allude to his
troubled upbringing." Thus, according to the judge, defendant's "bald
assertions" were insufficient to establish a prima facie claim for PCR. See State
v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) ("[I]n order to
establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald
assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.").
Moreover, in addressing the merits of defendant's arguments, the judge
acknowledged that while defense counsel "did not advocate for mitigating
factors four and eleven, the record reflect[ed] th[e c]ourt reviewed the relevant
evidence for mitigating factors" and "would not have modified the sentence . . .
even if [defense counsel] had urged those [factors] upon th[e c]ourt," given the
preponderance of aggravating factors to which the court accorded "substantial
weight." See State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123, 154 (2011) (explaining that "the failure
to present mitigating evidence or argue for mitigating factors was [IAC] - even
within the confines of the plea agreement" when "the sentencing court was
deprived of information and arguments that might well have led it to impose a
lesser term").
A-2258-20
7
In that regard, the judge explained:
With regard to mitigating factor four it's difficult
to imagine how a troubled upbringing would tend to
excuse a fifty-year-old from sending forty-one nude
photos or videos of himself to females ranging in age
from nine years old to sixteen years old including a
video of himself. It's very difficult and without some
sort of a psychological evaluation the [c]ourt would
never have found mitigating factor four even if [defense
counsel] had stood up in front of me and advocated for
that and I certainly don't have a basis for it on the basis
of this submission.
As to factor eleven, it's also difficult to imagine
how his incarceration would entail an excessive
hardship to his dependents when at the time of the
sentencing he had an active child support warrant . . .
with respect to his only dependent son who lives in
Puerto Rico and he owes $10,734 in child support . . . .
Not being able to pay child support when you haven't
paid it in the past anyway . . . just doesn't rise to that
level and I think it's really specious for anybody to rely
upon saying that I have a child affected by [d]own's
syndrome who lives in Puerto Rico who's going to be
excessively affected by the hardship by my being in
prison.
On appeal, defendant renews the arguments rejected by Judge Wild,
arguing his "petition established a prima facie case of [IAC] due to trial counsel's
failure . . . at sentencing . . . to present evidence and argue in support of
applicable mitigating factors" and "[a] fair resolution of th[e] claim required a
testimonial hearing." After reviewing the record de novo, and the decision to
A-2258-20
8
deny an evidentiary hearing under an abuse of discretion standard , we conclude
Judge Wild thoroughly and accurately addressed defendant's contentions, and
the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion here. R.
2:11-3(e)(2); see State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016)
("[W]here . . . no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we may review the factual
inferences the [trial] court has drawn from the documentary record de novo,"
and "[w]e also review de novo the court's conclusions of law."); State v.
Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013) ("[W]e review under the
abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without
an evidentiary hearing."). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge
Wild's comprehensive oral opinion.
Affirmed.
A-2258-20
9