SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3711-18

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. 

 

CAMILO L. LOPEZ, a/k/a

CAMILO LOPEZ ALVAREZ

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted May 13, 2020 – Decided July 2, 2021

Before Judges Fuentes and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 06-08-1395.

Camilo Lopez, appellant pro se.

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant 

Prosecutor, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-3711-18

Defendant Camilo Lopez appeals from the order of the Criminal Part that 

denied his second post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.

Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of murder, N.J.S.A. 

2C:11-3(a)(1), and first degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3). On 

September 13, 2007, the trial court merged these two offenses and sentenced 

defendant to a term of fifty years, with thirty years of parole ineligibility. This 

court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence, State v. Lopez, A-000488-

07 (App. Div. August 19, 2010), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 81 (2011). We 

incorporate by reference the facts described by our colleagues in this 

unpublished opinion. Id., slip op. at 2-5. 

Defendant filed his first PCR petition thereafter, alleging ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel. The court assigned counsel to represent him in the 

prosecution of the petition and heard oral argument on August 30, 2012. In an 

order entered on September 11, 2012, the PCR judge granted defendant's request 

for an evidentiary hearing "to take testimony as to whether the bullet recovered 

could have been fired from a revolver and to determine whether Willie Cortez's 

potential trial testimony as to his involvement, or lack thereof, in the planning

and committing of the July 30, 1988 robbery and homicide would have added 
3

A-3711-18

anything to the defense . . . ." The PCR judge denied the remaining claims raised

by defendant.

At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, the PCR judge considered the 

testimonial evidence and the arguments of counsel and entered an order on May 

21, 2013, rejecting defendant's application for relief based on the "bullet, [the] 

testimony of Willie Cortez," and the claims of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel "at the previously conducted Wade1 hearing." This court affirmed the 

PCR judge's decision. State v. Lopez, A-5281-12 (App. Div. March 10, 2015), 

certif. denied, 223 N.J. 163 (2015). 

Defendant filed this second PCR petition in November 2018, once again 

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In an order dated February 21, 2019, 

the Criminal Part judge assigned to this case denied this second PCR petition.

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments in his 

pro se brief:

POINT I

APPELLANT'S SECOND [PCR] SHOULD HAVE 

BEEN GRANTED AS GOOD CAUSE WAS SHOW 

[SIC]. (Not Raised Below).

1 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
4

A-3711-18

POINT II

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE 

CRUCIAL FACTS OF THE CASE WITH 

DEFENDANT AND THE JURY CAUSED 

[DEFENDANT] SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICED AND 

INJURIOUS EFFECTS ON THE JURY'S VERDICT 

AND THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL. (Not Raised 

Below).

A.) COUNSEL FAILED TO 

INVESTIGATE READY [SIC] 

AVAILABLE FACTS OF THE CASE TO 

PREPARE AN "ACTUAL INNOCENCE" 

DEFENSE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE 

DEFENDANT DEPRIVED HIM OF A 

FAIR TRIAL. (Not Raised Below).

B.) FAILURE TO SUBJECT THE 

STATE'S CASE TO A MEANINGFUL 

ADVERSARY CHALLENGE TEST TO 

VALIDATE THE WORTHINESS OF MR. 

HERNANDEZ'S FALSE TESTIMONY 

DURING THE TRIAL FALLS FAR 

BELOW WHAT A REASONABLE, 

COMPETENT AND HONEST 

ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE DONE 

UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. 

(Not Raised Below).

C.) COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE A 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS MR. 

HERNANDEZ'S PERJURED

TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE JURY, 

WHICH BY DESIGN WAS TO 

DELIVERATELY DECEIT [SIC] THE 

JURORS AND ALLOWED TO GO ON 
5

A-3711-18

UNMOLESTED, UNCORRECTED, AND 

UNCHALLENGED CONSTITUTED A 

VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS 

CLAUSE AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE A 

FAIR TRIAL. (Not Raised Below).

D.) A VIOLATION OF THE [U.S. 

CONST., AMENDS V, VI AND IV] 

AMENDMENTS GUARANTEED 

RIGHTS TO PROVIDED BY THE [N.J. 

CONST., ART. 1, ¶¶ 1 AND 10], 

PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 10:6-2e. (Not 

Raised Below).

E.) COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AFTER 

THE STATE[']S CASE HAD CLOSED 

UNDER R. 3:18-2, REQUIRES THE 

CONVICTION TO BE VACATED. (Not 

Raised Below).

We affirm the order of the Criminal Part because defendant has not 

provided any basis to satisfy the standard for filing a second PCR petition as 

codified in Rule 3:22-12(a)(2). Although the Criminal Part judge based her 

ruling on different legal grounds, it is a long-settled principle of appellate 

jurisprudence that "an appeal is taken from a trial court's ruling rather than 

reasons for the ruling." State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div.

2011).

Affirmed.