SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1182-15T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

IVAN GLASGOW, a/k/a IVAN BROWN,

IVAN GOLDEN, IVAN GLASSGOW,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

Submitted March 6, 2017 – Decided 

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Camden County, Accusation No. 

12-05-1405.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Abby P. Schwartz, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Linda A. Shashoua, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Ivan Glasgow appeals from the October 13, 2015 Law 

Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 17, 2017
2 A-1182-15T4

(PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, defendant raises 

two points: 

POINT I

BY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE 

MONEY SEIZED FROM PETITIONER'S APARTMENT, THE 

SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, AND THE STORAGE UNIT, 

PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE [EFFECTIVE] 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS SOME OF THIS MONEY 

WAS NOT DRUG RELATED BUT RATHER RELATED TO 

OTHER, LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES. AS SUCH, THE 

AMOUNT OF MONEY WOULD HAVE IMPACTED THE PLEA 

OFFER. COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THIS 

PRIOR TO THE PLEA BARGAIN WAS INEFFECTIVE AND 

VIOLATED PETITIONER'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS 

AND TO A FAIR TRIAL.

POINT II

IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT 

THERE BE AN APPEAL PRIOR TO FILING A PETITION 

FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Following his arrest, defendant waived his right to have the 

charges presented to a grand jury, accepted the State's plea offer, 

and pled guilty to both counts of an accusation. The accusation 

charged him with first-degree manufacturing, distributing, or 

dispensing a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), cocaine, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(1), and second-degree possession of a weapon 

while committing a CDS offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1. In accordance 

with the plea agreement, a judge sentenced defendant to a ten-year 

custodial term with five years of parole ineligibility on the 
3 A-1182-15T4

first count, and to a consecutive six-year custodial term with 

three years of parole ineligibility on the second count. Two and 

one-half years later, defendant filed his PCR petition. 

In his pro se petition, defendant alleged: illegal sentence;

counsel failed to investigate; counsel was ineffective during the 

plea process; and counsel failed to file an appeal. Defendant 

filed an affidavit and pro se brief in support of his petition. 

In his affidavit, defendant asserted his sentence was illegal and 

information provided during the plea process should not have been 

used against him at sentencing. Defendant also alleged his counsel 

was ineffective for the following reasons: failing to investigate 

defendant's "legitimate assets and financial transactions, origin, 

source, ownership or control of taxable income or proceeds"; 

failing "to object [to] civil rules being applied to [a] criminal 

offense" during plea negotiations; failing to provide defendant 

with discovery after defendant requested it; and failing to file 

an appeal. 

In addition to his own affidavit, defendant submitted 

documents concerning income he had earned and a statement from his 

sister that defense counsel never spoke to her about financial 

documents in her possession and legitimate sources of defendant's 

income. 
4 A-1182-15T4

Following the filing of these pleadings by defendant, the 

court appointed counsel, who filed a supplemental brief. The 

court conducted oral argument on defendant's petition and reserved 

decision. In an October 13, 2015 written decision, the court 

denied defendant's petition. 

According to the court's written decision, a confidential 

informant ("CI") reported to the Gloucester Township Police that 

an individual, later identified as defendant, was selling crack 

cocaine out of his apartment. The CI made three controlled buys 

from defendant, which led to the police obtaining and executing a

search warrant at defendant's apartment. The police seized from 

defendant's bedroom a loaded handgun, forty-three bags of crack 

cocaine, a stun gun, a crossbow and arrows, and $7009. The police 

also seized from defendant's living room seventy bags of crack 

cocaine, narcotics packaging, mail, and two large flat screen 

televisions.

The police arrested defendant, who waived his Miranda1 rights. 

He disclosed he had four ounces of cocaine, four ounces of crack 

cocaine, and two handguns in various storage units. He also 

admitted having $6000 in a safe deposit box and $5900 in another 

safe deposit box. 

 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 

694 (1966).
5 A-1182-15T4

The police obtained another warrant and searched defendant's 

storage units and safe deposit boxes. They seized $30,100, five 

one-ounce bags of powder cocaine, four one-ounce bags of crack 

cocaine, and two handguns, one of which was defaced. 

The police charged defendant and initiated forfeiture 

proceedings for the cash and guns. The court stayed the forfeiture 

proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 

After recounting these facts, the court analyzed defendant's 

arguments. Rejecting defendant's argument that counsel was 

ineffective for failing to investigate the legitimate sources of 

the cash seized by police, the court explained that none of the 

documents provided by defendant demonstrated that the seized cash 

came from legitimate sources. Additionally, the court noted though 

defendant had "submitted a properly-sworn affidavit from 

defendant's sister, this affidavit does not indicate what an 

investigation of the 'financial records' would have revealed." 

The court further explained defendant had not offered factual 

support, including documentation, to substantiate the facts he 

claimed his counsel's investigation would have revealed. The 

court also undertook a detailed analysis of the claims defendant 

raised in his PCR petition, which he has not raised on appeal.
6 A-1182-15T4

We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge 

Steven J. Polansky in his written decision. We add only the 

following brief comments.

Here, as Judge Polansky explained, defendant did not 

establish by competent evidence what counsel's investigation of 

his financial records would have revealed. Defendant's appeal 

suffers from the same deficiency. Defendant has not explained how 

counsel's investigation would have demonstrated that the cash 

seized by police was income earned from legitimate 

sources. Defendant's unsupported assertions are not competent 

evidence. More important, defendant has not explained, in view 

of the quantity of drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from him, 

how showing some cash came from legitimate sources would have 

affected his evaluation of the State's case and his decision to 

plead guilty. Once again, defendant has made nothing more than a 

conclusory assertion that somehow the amount of cash seized by 

police affected his decision to plead guilty. Conclusory 

assertions are insufficient to establish an ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super.

154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).

 Because defendant did not establish a prima facie case of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, he was not entitled to an 
7 A-1182-15T4

evidentiary hearing. R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.

451, 462 (1992).

 Affirmed.