SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3796-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KYREE T. JOHNSON, a/k/a KYRE JOHNSON,

KYREE JAQUAN JOHNSON, TYREE JOHNSON,

and JOHNSON TYREE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted June 6, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, 

Indictment No. 12-04-0813.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Alison Perrone, 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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 22, 2017
2 A-3796-15T1

Defendant Kyree Johnson appeals from a March 18, 2016 order 

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He raises 

the following issue on this appeal:

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING ON THIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY 

RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

We affirm. 

In 2013, following a series of pre-trial motions, defendant 

pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a), and 

was sentenced to twelve years in prison subject to the No Early 

Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. As set forth in the briefs 

and in the PCR judge's opinion, defendant was facing a strong 

prosecution case. Witnesses saw defendant fleeing the scene of 

the shooting. Another witness saw the shooter run into a store 

and discard some of his clothing. The police found a blood stained 

shirt and sweatpants, containing both the victim's DNA and 

defendant's DNA. 

At the plea hearing, defendant confirmed a notation in the 

written plea agreement that he was not satisfied with his 

attorney's services. However, he gave no explanation for his 

dissatisfaction, and confirmed that he wished to plead guilty. He 

stated that he had sufficiently discussed the case with his 

attorney and provided an adequate factual basis for the guilty 

plea. Judge Michele M. Fox, who was then the trial judge, 
3 A-3796-15T1

concluded that defendant's unspecified dissatisfaction was not a 

bar to the court accepting his guilty plea. 

Defendant subsequently filed his PCR petition, attesting in 

general terms that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing 

to "thoroughly investigate specific issues pertinent to proving 

his innocence prior to accepting the terms of a [plea offer]." 

In a thorough oral opinion placed on the record on March 18, 2016, 

Judge Fox concluded that defendant's PCR arguments were based on 

unsupported general assertions which did not establish a prima 

facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. 

Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013); State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 

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

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal 

standards, we agree with the judge that defendant's PCR contentions 

were unsupported by legally competent evidence. Nor did defendant 

attest that, but for his attorney's deficient representation, he 

would have refused to plead guilty and insisted on going to trial. 

See State v. Nuñez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009). Therefore, 

the judge properly rejected the PCR without an evidentiary hearing. 

Cummings, supra, 321 N.J. Super. at 170. We affirm for the reasons 

she stated in her opinion. Defendant's appellate arguments are 

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(2). 
4 A-3796-15T1

Affirmed.