RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3124-21 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

HITEN A. PATEL, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________

Submitted October 24, 2023 – Decided February 16, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos. 13-04-1262 

and 13-08-2190.

Hiten A. Patel, appellant pro se. 

William Edward Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Mario Christopher Formica,

Chief Counsel to the Prosecutor, of counsel; Linda 

Anne Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3124-21

Defendant Hiten A. Patel was convicted of numerous offenses stemming 

from a series of sexual assaults, terroristic threats, and criminal restraints on 

seven women in Atlantic City. State v. Patel, No. A-3824-14 (App. Div. Jan. 

18, 2017) (slip op. at 2-3). Defendant's modus operandi in committing the 

offenses involved soliciting the women, some of whom were prostitutes, for sex,

brandishing a toy gun, and, at times, impersonating a police officer. Id. at 5-15. 

He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of forty-six years, with forty-five 

years subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Id. at 2. The 

conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at 40. 

On June 7, 2019, defendant's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition 

alleging ineffectiveness of counsel was denied by the PCR Judge, who also was 

the trial judge, following a two-day evidentiary hearing. The judge detailed his 

reasons in a ninety-three-page letter opinion. We denied defendant's appeal. 

State v. Patel, No. A-4877-18 (App. Div. May 12, 2021) (slip op. at 2, 7-8). 

While defendant's petition for certification was pending and before it was 

eventually denied, State v. Patel, 249 N.J. 106 (2021), defendant filed a second 

PCR petition again alleging ineffectiveness of counsel, which also was denied 
3 A-3124-21

by the same PCR judge in a May 13, 2022 order,1 for reasons explained in a 

thirty-six-page letter opinion. 

Before the second PCR petition was denied, a self-represented defendant 

filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, repeating an 

earlier assertion that the State committed a Brady2 violation by not disclosing 

the complete criminal history of the sexual assault victims-witnesses. In a May 

23, 2022 order, the PCR judge denied the motion, reasoning: 

[T]hat the issue concerning the criminal histories of 

witnesses and victims was raised and addressed at trial, 

on direct appeal and by your first petition for [PCR]. 

Specifically, these issues were argued in your first 

petition for PCR and your motion for a new 

trial/judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. 

The [June 7, 2019] letter [opinion] regarding your first 

petition for PCR . . . discussed the argument pertaining 

to the criminal histories of all victims and found (1) the 

argument to be baseless and (2) that trial counsel was 

not deficient under the Strickland/Fritz[3] test for 

ineffective assistance of counsel. The letter [opinion] 

regarding your motion for a new trial/judgment of 

1

 This order is not the subject of this appeal, nor any other appeal pending before 

our court. 

2

 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

3

 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 683 (1984) (to demonstrate 

ineffectiveness of counsel, "[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's 

performance was deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense."), adopted in State v. Fritz, 105 

N.J. 42, 58 (1987). 
4 A-3124-21

acquittal notwithstanding the verdict dated January 9, 

2014, additionally discussed the cross-examination of 

the victims and noted that many of these women were

cross-examined on their convictions, their history of 

substance abuse and other anti-social behavior. 

Defendant appeals arguing: 

POINT I 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED 

UPON NEWLY[-]DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, 

BRADY DUE PROCESS DISCOVERY 

VIOLATIONS AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE 

OF COUNSEL ON HIS FIRST [PCR] PETITION 

WITHOUT AFFORDING DEFENDANT AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS 

HIS CONTENTION THAT PCR COUNSEL'S 

FAILURE TO RAISE THE POST-CONVICTION 

DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL 

RECORDS OF THE STATE'S PRIMARY 

WITNESSES AGAINST [HIM] DENIED HIM 

ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION 

WARRANTING REVERSAL OF HIS 

CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL. 

A. There Was No Strategical Reason For PCR 

Counsel's Failure To Raise The Brady Violation 

Claim On The First PCR Petition. 

POINT II 

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REVEAL[S] 

THE STATE WITHHELD, SUPPRESSED AND 

FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL 

HISTORY OF ITS TESTIFYING WITNESSES. 

THUS, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS DUE 
5 A-3124-21

PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER 

BRADY [AND] ITS PROGENY AND RULE 3:13-3 

WARRANTING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S 

CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL. 

A. The Deliberate Suppression, Withholding And 

Non-Disclosure Of Evidence By The State Was 

A Distinct Pattern Of Misconduct By The State 

Prosecutor. 

Having considered the arguments, the record, and applicable law, we 

conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by 

PCR judge in his well-reasoned written decision. We add the following brief 

remarks. 

There is no reason to disturb the judge's order because it was not "a 

miscarriage of justice under the law." State v. Armour, 446 N.J. Super. 295, 305 

(App. Div. 2016) (quoting R. 2:10-1). A defendant is permitted to seek a new 

trial based on newly discovered evidence at any time. State v. Szemple, 247 

N.J. 82, 99 (2021) (citing R. 3:20-2). But here, no new evidence was presented 

to support a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we do not consider the threeprong test that must be satisfied to warrant a new trial based upon newly 

discovered evidence. See State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 

2020) ("[T]o qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new 
6 A-3124-21

trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely 

cumulative or impeaching or contradictory; (2) discovered since the trial and not 

discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) of the sort that would 

probably change the jury's verdict if a new trial were granted." (quoting State v. 

Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981))). Furthermore, given the absence of new 

evidence, there is no basis for defendant's assertion of a Brady violation: the 

State failed to disclose "evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates 

due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, 

irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S. 

at 87. In sum, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant a new 

trial. See Armour, 446 N.J. Super. at 306 (citing State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super. 

119, 137 (App. Div. 2000)). 

Affirmed.