[brief] To the contrary, he took some comfort at least now they finally had chosen to identify the hard drive, that they have competent people to conduct a forensic examination.  Because after all, we’re dealing with what the defense considers the most critical evidence in the case.  (19T5-9 to 15)  On PCR, the court granted [...]’s motion to compel the hard drive.  When [...] claimed it did not have the hard drive, the court granted a motion to compel responses to interrogatories about the hard drive and the February 2014 report.  [...] refused to answer the interrogatories propounded, a refusal that the judge who took over the case and ultimately denied the PCR allowed by sua sponte vacating the earlier orders, as discussed more below.  The PCR judge then denied the claim counsel was ineffective for not demanding the hard drive be produced for forensic examination.  She decided: the charge was “an effective sanction against the State” at trial; with no evidence, that counsel made a strategic decision in not demanding the drive; and [...] “could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the hard drive contains evidence that would change the jury’s decision. ”  (Da358-59)  The judge again applied the wrong standard: for an evidentiary hearing, [...] only needed to present a prima facie claim.  Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63.  Also, effective assistance includes the right to have an attorney investigate available evidence.  Counsel’s decision not to present evidence cannot be strategic if failing to investigate precluded him from making an informed decision.  Reasonably competent counsel must fully investigate a defense he is presenting at trial, which here included having the drive examined in the first instance, rather than relying solely on [...]’s pretrial assertions.  And certainly, once [...] revealed that its prior statements about the wiping the data were incorrect, it was incumbent upon counsel to conduct its own analysis.  The need for investigation of the hard drive would have been obvious to competent counsel.  The case came down to whether the jury believed [...] left [...] in time to get to Atlantic City, kill [...] at 12:11, and speed back in time to appear on the security cameras and fabricate an alibi.  The purported “wiping” of the drive deprived the defense the opportunity to review all the footage to discover what would have corroborated [...]’s alibi, such as showing that no car came between 12:11 and 12:42pm, or showing [...] around the complex that morning and midday, supporting other aspects of his statement.  The defense needed all the downloaded footage, not just the short clips the State preserved, refute the State’s theory.  Without it, the State was able to argue its timeline, particularly since the 12:25pm video was from the rear without any facial characteristics, not proving conclusively that it was [...].  [...] has made a prima facie claim.  Thus, a hearing is required so he can present testimony of witnesses who could explain the state of the hard drive in 2013 and 2014 and what a forensic examination could have yielded (particularly since it is undisputed that [...] did not “wipe” the drive as [...] testified had been done), and of trial counsel regarding his failure to act.