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

– D ecided 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FUENTES, P.J.A.D. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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) pet ition. 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 t erm of fifty years, with thirty years of parole ineligibility. T his

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 des cribed by our colleagues in th is

u npublished opinion. Id.
, s lip 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 revolve r 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 added3 A

- 3711

- 18

anything to the defense

. . . . " The PCR judge denied th e remaining claims raise d
by defendant.
At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, the PCR judge consider ed 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 "bul let, [the]
testimony of Willie Cortez," and the claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel "at the previously conducted Wade 1 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, on c e again
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In an order dated February 21, 2019,
the Criminal Part judge assigned to this case denied t his 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] AVAILA BLE FACTS OF THE CASE TO PREPARE AN "ACTUAL INNOCENCE" DEFENSE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAI R 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 PERJ URED TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE JURY, WHICH BY DESIGN WAS TO DELIVERATELY DECEIT [SIC] THE JURORS AND ALLOWED TO GO ON5 A

- 3711

- 18 UNMOLESTED, UNCORRECTED, AND UNCHALLENGED CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. (Not Rais ed 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 ACQUITTA L 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 d efendant has not
provided any basis to satisfy the standard for filing a second PCR petiti on as

codified in Rule 3:22

- 12(a)(2). Although the Criminal Part judge based her
ruling on different legal grounds, i t 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. D iv.
2011).

Affirmed.