SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0541-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHELET GLAUDE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted February 6, 2019 – Decided March 11, 2019

Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 10-01-0213.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen A. 

Pogany, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0541-17T1

PER CURIAM

Defendant Michelet Glaude appeals from a December 9, 2016 order 

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

Defendant raises the following points of argument in his counseled brief:

Point One – THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING 

HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE 

ISSUES OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF A 

PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION AND TRIAL 

COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ENGAGE EXPERT 

WITNESSES. 

A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL 

PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS FOR 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, 

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITITIONS 

FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

B. The Denial of a Competency Hearing.

C. The Failure to Engage Expert Witnesses.

In a pro se supplemental brief that does not have point headings, defendant 

repeats essentially the same arguments. After reading the record, we conclude 

that all of defendant's arguments are without merit and, except as briefly 

addressed below, they do not warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm 

substantially for the reasons stated by the PCR judge in his written opinion

issued with the order. We add these comments. 
3

A-0541-17T1

A jury convicted defendant of first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 

2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; first-degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)(1); 

second-degree aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-

1(b)(1); third-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b); third-degree 

criminal restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2; and third-degree unlawful taking of a 

means of conveyance, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-10(c). He was sentenced to an aggregate 

term of twenty-five years in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirmed the conviction and sentence on defendant's 

direct appeal. State v. Glaude, No. A-3425-11 (App. Div. Nov. 25, 2014), certif. 

denied, 221 N.J. 287 (2015). 

The trial evidence was detailed in our opinion on the direct appeal and 

need not be repeated here. To briefly summarize, defendant was accused of 

brutally assaulting and mutilating his former girlfriend. At his trial, defendant 

did not deny the charges but claimed that he was highly intoxicated at the time 

and could not remember assaulting the victim. However, as we noted in our 

opinion, an Alcotest administered about three hours after the incident did not 

reveal a very high blood alcohol level. Moreover, in his trial testimony 

defendant recalled many details surrounding the incident, although he claimed 

not to remember the attack itself. 
4

A-0541-17T1

In his PCR petition, defendant claimed that his trial counsel was 

ineffective because she did not present expert testimony to support an 

intoxication defense. Like the PCR judge, we find no merit in that assertion. 

On a PCR petition, if a defendant claims that his trial attorney should have called 

a witness to testify at the trial, the defendant must provide legally competent 

evidence of what the witness would have said if called at trial. State v. 

Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). Bald assertions are 

insufficient to present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Ibid. Defendant did not provide the report of an expert witness to support his 

PCR claim that, had his trial counsel retained an expert, the expert would likely 

have provided testimony to support an intoxication defense. Further, neither 

defendant's blood alcohol level nor his trial testimony suggest the likelihood that 

his trial counsel could have found such an expert. 

Defendant also asserted that his trial counsel should have retained a 

psychiatric expert to support a claim that defendant was not competent to stand 

trial. He further claimed that his appellate counsel should have raised on appeal 

the trial court's denial of defense counsel's request for a court-ordered 

competency examination. However, defendant's PCR petition was devoid of 

medical records or an expert report to support his claim that he suffered from a 
5

A-0541-17T1

mental illness, much less one that rendered him incompetent to stand trial. In a 

pretrial hearing, the trial judge questioned defendant in detail and concluded that 

there was no basis to order a competency examination. We have reviewed the 

transcript of the voir dire and find no error in the judge's conclusion. 

Like his claim regarding the intoxication defense, defendant's PCR claims 

relating to his alleged lack of competency to stand trial were based on bald 

assertions. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. at 170. Defendant did not provide 

legally competent evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

retain experts, or that the experts, if retained, would have provided testimony 

that could have changed the outcome of the trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Nor was his appellate counsel ineffective for failing 

to raise a meritless appellate argument. Having failed to present a prima facie 

case as to either prong of the Strickland test, defendant was not entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing on his PCR petition. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 

462 (1992).

Affirmed.