NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4097-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICKY ROMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued January 31, 2022 – Decided February 10, 2022
Before Judges Fasciale and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 11-05-
0807.
Jeffrey G. Garrigan argued the cause for appellant
(Cammarata, Nulty & Garrigan, LLC, attorneys; John
P. Nulty, Jr., and Jeffrey G. Garrigan, on the briefs).
Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
cause for respondent (Esther Suarez, Hudson County
Prosecutor, attorney; Erin M. Campbell, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from an October 29, 2019 order denying his petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR). The PCR judge entered the order without an
evidentiary hearing and issued an oral opinion. Defendant maintains his trial
counsel rendered ineffective assistance 1 and asserts that the PCR judge erred
by not conducting an evidentiary hearing. He urges us to reverse and remand
for a hearing.
Defendant argues that his trial counsel—who allegedly practiced law
primarily in New York—was sufficiently unfamiliar with the rules of evidence
to properly advise him about the admissibility of a statement by a witness that
was no longer available to testify at the second trial. 2 Had defendant known
that the statement would have been introduced into evidence, he argues he
would have accepted the State's favorable plea offer of ten years in prison.
Instead, he rejected the offer, was found guilty, and received a sentence of life
in prison. Defendant also asserts the State procured the witness's
unavailability, which is corroborated by a certification of the witness himself,
1
Although defendant raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims against
his direct appellate counsel in his original PCR petition, his primary focus in
this appeal is on the purported ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.
2
The first trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
A-4097-19
2
and that this procurement is directly relevant to the erroneous evidentiary
advice he received from trial counsel.
Without a hearing, at a minimum, we do not know trial counsel's
rationale when she counseled defendant about the State's plea offer and the
admissibility of the prior statement from the witness. And on this record, we
do not know if trial counsel's advice was at all shaped by whether the State
procured the witness's unavailability, and if so, how that procurement impacted
her discussions with defendant. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a full
evidentiary hearing.
I.
At the conclusion of a re-trial, a jury found defendant guilty of first-
degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)-(2); third-degree possession of a
weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and fourth-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). The sentencing judge
imposed a sentence of life in prison with concurrent prison terms of five years
and eighteen months. We affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded for
re-sentencing. State v. Roman, No. A-0290-14 (App. Div. Oct. 7, 2016) (slip
op. at 19). On remand, defendant received an aggregate sentence of life in
prison. That led to the PCR petition and the entry of the order under review.
A-4097-19
3
We briefly refer to the facts as expressed in our unpublished decision.
Defendant and A.C. had a six-year relationship. Id. at 2. Sometime after this
relationship deteriorated, A.C. began dating the victim. Id. at 3. A.C. testified
that defendant would call her and ask about her relationship with the victim.
Ibid. A.C. and defendant eventually began dating again. Ibid.
W.M., the witness whose statements were admitted due to his
unavailability in the second trial, testified at defendant's first trial. Id. at 3-4.
During the first trial, he testified that he knew defendant and the victim. Id. at
4. He explained he was in the parking lot of a housing complex in Jersey City
when he heard a commotion and saw people running. Ibid. He did not
elaborate more about the incident until he was confronted with a statement he
previously made to detectives, ibid., in which he said he saw defendant stab
the victim in the back, id. at 5; however—and especially pertinent here—in his
PCR certification, W.M. denied the accuracy of his statement, explaining that
he had his back turned, so he could not see the incident. W.M. then
purportedly went missing before the second trial.
M.B. testified that he was in his home when the victim entered the
residence. Id. at 6. M.B. said he saw blood on the victim's shirt. Ibid. The
victim tried to walk through the front door but collapsed. Ibid. M.B. then
A-4097-19
4
testified that the victim's brother came and took the victim to the hospital.
Ibid.
The victim then died at the hospital. Ibid. The medical examiner
testified that the victim had two large stab wounds in the back, the first wound
being the cause of death, as it perforated the victim's heart and lungs. Ibid.
The medical examiner said the stab wounds were caused by a very sharp
object. Ibid. Detectives later found a knife in a sewer on the street. Id. at 7.
The sewer was near defendant's known residence. Ibid.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points for this court's
consideration:
[POINT] I
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TO THE ISSUES
RAISED IN HIS PETITION FOR [PCR.]
A. Defendant Is Entitled To An Evidentiary
Hearing As To His Claims Of Ineffective
Assistance of Trial Counsel.
1. Defendant's contention that trial
counsel's erroneous legal advice caused
him to reject a favorable plea offer can
only be determined in an evidentiary
hearing.
2. Trial counsel's deficient performance in
conducting the [N.J.R.E.] 104 Hearing
A-4097-19
5
and/or failing to request a continuance
constitutes ineffective assistance of
counsel.3
B. Because The State's Improper Conduct
Caused [W.M.] To Be Unavailable At Trial, His
Prior Statement And Testimony Should Not
Have Been Permitted Into Evidence.
II.
When a PCR judge does not conduct an evidentiary hearing—like here—
we review the PCR judge's factual findings and legal conclusions de novo.
See State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016); see also State
v. Zeikel, 423 N.J. Super. 34, 41 (App. Div. 2011) (explaining our "standard of
review is . . . plenary" where the PCR judge "did not take any testimony but
relied solely on the same documentary record that is before [an appellate court]
on appeal").
To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
defendant must satisfy the two-pronged test enumerated in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which our Court adopted in State v.
Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). To meet the first Strickland/Fritz prong, the
defendant must establish that his counsel "made errors so serious that counsel
3
To comport with our style conventions, we altered the capitalization of
plaintiff's subpoints 1 and 2, but we have omitted these alterations for
readability.
A-4097-19
6
was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment." 466 U.S. at 687. The defendant must rebut the "strong
presumption that counsel's conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance." Id. at 689. Thus, this court must consider whether a
trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Id. at 688.
To satisfy the second Strickland/Fritz prong, the defendant must show a
"counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a
trial whose result is reliable," id. at 687, and establish "a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome," id. at 694.
"[I]f counsel's performance has been so deficient as to create a reasonable
probability that these deficiencies materially contributed to [the] defendant's
conviction, the constitutional right will have been violated." Fritz, 105 N.J. at
58.
A defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie claim. State
v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012). But a defendant is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing if the facts viewed "in the light most favorable to
A-4097-19
7
defendant," would entitle him to PCR. State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158
(1997) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992)); R. 3:22-10(b).
"If, with the facts so viewed, the PCR claim has a reasonable probability of
being meritorious, then the defendant should ordinarily receive an evidentiary
hearing in order to prove his entitlement to relief." State v. Jones, 219 N.J.
298, 311 (2014). A defendant must "do more than make bald assertions that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel" to establish a prima facie claim
entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super.
154, 170 (App. Div. 1999).
If, as alleged here, the record "does not fully satisfy the question
whether [trial counsel] was ineffective during plea discussions and
negotiations," then a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
"surrounding [a] defendant's claims in respect of his rejection of the plea
offers." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 372 (2008). A defendant is entitled to
an evidentiary hearing "particularly when the dispute regards events and
conversations that occur off the record or outside the presence of the judge."
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013). "[A] defendant must show the
outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent
A-4097-19
8
advice." Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 163 (2012). To prove ineffective
assistance of counsel as to the rejection of an offer,
a defendant must show that but for the ineffective
advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that
the plea offer would have been presented to the court
(i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea
and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in
light of intervening circumstances), that the [judge]
would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction
or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would
have been less severe than under the judgment and
sentence that in fact were imposed.
[Id. at 164 (emphasis removed).]
III.
Defendant argues there are two material issues of disputed fact that
cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. First, his trial counsel was
unfamiliar with the rules of evidence—specifically, N.J.R.E. 804—and
improperly advised him of the admissibility of W.M.'s statement, which caused
him to reject the State's favorable plea offer. Second, the State procured the
unavailability of W.M. so his statement should not have been admitted.
Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to resolve these questions
before adjudicating his petition.
A-4097-19
9
A.
Defendant contends that on the first day of the re-trial he rejected the
plea offer because his counsel advised him W.M.'s prior testimony was
inadmissible hearsay. The State previously conceded that on the first day of
trial, it made a plea offer of ten years in prison. The State asserts that
defendant's contention is "a bare allegation" and defendant has not provided
"contemporaneous evidence that he would have accepted the plea." Both the
State and defendant rely on Allegro to support their contentions.
At the re-trial, the State moved under N.J.R.E. 804 to have W.M.'s
testimony "permitted . . . into evidence [as] prior testimony" because W.M.
was an unavailable witness. The PCR judge found trial counsel's performance
sufficient because there was nothing to indicate that counsel did not
understand the rules of evidence, "even due to her unfortunate comment" that
she had never participated in a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing. But on this record,
defendant made a prima facie case that his trial counsel was unfamiliar with
our rules of evidence and, as a result, she erroneously advised him W.M.'s
prior testimony, which included his statements to the detectives that defendant
stabbed the victim, could not be introduced into evidence at the retrial if W.M.
did not appear. Indeed, she admitted in her certification that she advised
A-4097-19
10
defendant W.M.'s prior statement could not be admitted at the re-trial under
New York law. But not until the third day of the re-trial, when she reviewed
N.J.R.E. 804 carefully, did she realize that "it could be admitted in New
Jersey." When arguing against the admissibility of W.M.'s prior statements,
she stated, "I understand that there's a section in the [N.J.R.E.] 804, and I've
reviewed it very carefully." But again, she apparently did not do so until the
third day of trial, after she advised defendant to reject the offer. On this
record, defendant made a prima facie case that trial counsel misinformed
defendant about the admissibility of W.M.'s prior testimony and statements to
the detective at the time he considered and then rejected the State's ten-year
plea offer. Counsel's alleged misadvice is of particular significance because
there was no forensic evidence tying defendant to the stabbing, and W.M. was
the only person claiming, at least in his initial statement to the detectives, he
saw defendant stab the victim. Thus, the admission of W.M.'s prior testimony,
which included the admission of his statement to the detectives, was very
significant evidence at the retrial.
There are also ambiguities as to the State's plea offer and the trial advice
given to defendant by his counsel. The record, as it stands now, "does not
fully satisfy the question whether [trial counsel] was ineffective during plea
A-4097-19
11
discussions and negotiations," thus, defendant is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing "surrounding . . . claims in respect of his rejection of the plea offer[]."
Allegro, 193 N.J. at 372. Crucially to defendant's claim, it is unclear what trial
counsel told defendant as she only states that she "was aware that [the prior
testimony] could be admitted in New Jersey if [W.M.] was properly found to
be unavailable under the applicable evidence rule." But her certification is
vague as to what she advised defendant. And, in defendant certification, he
states counsel advised him W.M.'s prior testimony could not be admitted at the
re-trial if he did not appear. Much like in Allegro, here, the record is "less
than complete" and there needs to be "a more robust exposition of the facts
surrounding defendant's claims." Ibid.
B.
Defendant also asserts that the State caused W.M.'s unavailability at the
second trial and his prior statement should not have been permitted into
evidence. When a declarant is unavailable, N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1)(A) allows for
the admission of a testimony in a prior proceeding if the testimony
(i) was given by a witness at a prior trial of the same
or a different matter, or in a hearing or deposition
taken in compliance with law in the course of the
same or another proceeding; and (ii) is now offered
against a party who had an opportunity and similar
motive in the prior trial, hearing or proceeding to
A-4097-19
12
develop the testimony by examination or cross-
examination.
A declarant is deemed unavailable if he "is absent from the trial, hearing, or
proceeding because of death, physical or mental illness or infirmity, or other
cause," N.J.R.E. 804(a)(4), except if "the declarant's unavailability has been
procured or wrongfully caused by the proponent of declarant's statement for
the purpose of preventing declarant from attending or testifying," N.J.R.E.
804(a); see also State v. Rinker, 446 N.J. Super. 347, 359 n.8 (App. Div. 2016)
(explaining that in those circumstances "the declarant is not 'unavailable' for
purposes of N.J.R.E. 804").
Pertinent to defendant's argument about whether the State procured the
unavailability, a PCR judge must consider the facts presented in a light most
favorable to the petitioning defendant. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63.
Determinations of credibility should not be made solely based upon a review
of competing affidavits. Porter, 216 N.J. at 356. To the extent that the
certifications of W.M., defendant, and his trial counsel conflict, credibility
determinations must be left for an evidentiary hearing.
In W.M.'s certification, he claims that the State caused his non-
appearance at the re-trial. He certified that the prosecutor's office told him,
"[T]hey were unhappy with [his] testimony at the first trial and they were
A-4097-19
13
responsible for [his] benefits being suspended." The PCR judge considered
this information but concluded that these were "wild assertions." He
concluded from W.M.'s certification that the witness may have had a
subjective belief that the State did not want him to testify. Again, credibility
determinations and whether the State procured his unavailability cannot be
made on this record but rather must be addressed at a hearing.
IV.
Defendant also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in conducting
the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and improperly failing to request a continuance. The
State contends this issue is barred under Rule 3:22-4 and Rule 3:22-5 because
defendant did not raise this issue on direct appeal and could have done so. 4 On
this record, we are unable to address defendant's contention. Trial counsel's
decision not to request a continuance to sufficiently address W.M.'s
4
Defendant does not suggest in his merits brief or reply brief that his
appellate counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
This is despite raising the subject in his original PCR petition. There is a
general "policy against entertaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal because they generally require examination of evidence
outside the trial record." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 460; see also State v. Miller,
216 N.J. 40, 70 n.7 (2013) (stating that the appropriate setting for an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is an application for PCR). On remand,
defendant may raise all PCR claims raised in his petition.
A-4097-19
14
unavailability goes beyond the trial record and can be addressed on remand
during the evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-4097-19
15