SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0345-18T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICARDO M. SUDLOW, a/k/a

RICCARDO SUDLOW,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________ 

Submitted January 23, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Indictment No. 09-11-1045.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Milton S. Leibowitz, Special 

Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, 

of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 25, 2020
2

A-0345-18T1

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

On March 11, 2011, defendant Ricardo M. Sudlow was tried before a jury 

and convicted of second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b, third-degree 

aggravated assault of a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5), third-degree 

receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, and fourth-degree resisting arrest, 

N.J.S.A. 29-2a. The jury also acquitted defendant of other related charges. On 

April 26, 2011, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of twelve 

years with four years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed the conviction and 

sentence on direct appeal, State v. Ricardo M. Sudlow, No. A-1082-11 (App. 

Div. June 18, 2013), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certification. 

State v. Sudlow, 220 N.J. 39 (2014). In lieu of restating the evidence presented 

by the State at trial, we incorporate by reference the facts described in our 

unpublished opinion in which we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. 

Slip op. at 3-4.

On April 15, 2016, defendant filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR)

petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his trial attorney 

failed to make appropriate objections and failed to investigate and locate the 

alleged driver of the stolen car. The PCR judge assigned counsel to represent 
3

A-0345-18T1

defendant to prosecute the petition. The judge heard oral argument on February 

16, 2018 and denied the PCR petition on May 23, 2018.

The judge explained the basis for his ruling in a memorandum of opinion. 

The judge applied the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme 

Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and subsequently 

adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), and

found defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he did not 

establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defendant raises the following argument in this appeal.

POINT I

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD 

AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MR. SUDLOW'S 

CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED HIM 

WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

BY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE DENNIS 

WEBSTER, THE PERSON MR. SUDLOW CLAIMED 

WAS THE DRIVER OF THE CAR. 

We review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the same 

two-prong test employed by the PCR judge. Defendant must first demonstrate 

that defense counsel's performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 

Second, he must show there exists "a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 
4

A-0345-18T1

different." Id. at 694. Here, the PCR judge found defendant did not present any 

competent evidence to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel. We thus reject this argument and affirm substantially for the 

reasons expressed by the PCR judge in his May 23, 2018 memorandum of 

opinion. 

Affirmed.