RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1260-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HEATHER LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted December 16, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 10-12-

1301.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Alexis R. Agre, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 29, 2020
2

A-1260-18T4

Defendant Heather Lewis appeals from a Law Division order denying her

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Having 

reviewed the record considering the applicable legal standards, we affirm 

substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Terrence R. Cook in his wellreasoned written decision.

I.

The procedural history and trial evidence are detailed in our unpublished 

decision affirming defendant's conviction on direct appeal, State v. Melia, Nos. 

A-1403-12, A-1912-12, (App. Div. Aug. 3, 2015), and in Judge Cook's written 

decision. A brief summary of the relevant facts and proceedings will suffice 

here. 

Over numerous occasions between 2002 and 2008, Robert S. Melia, Jr.

and defendant (collectively defendants), who were romantically involved, 

sexually assaulted three minor females, nieces of a man with whom defendant 

had a previous relationship. Additionally, in 2007, defendant sexually assaulted 

a fourteen-year-old boy, who was related to one of the female victims. 

Execution of search warrants at Melia's house uncovered videos on his computer 

depicting some of the sexual abuse committed by defendants. 
3

A-1260-18T4

Following a ten-day trial, a jury found defendants guilty of numerous 

counts of sexual-assault and related offenses. Specifically, defendant was 

convicted of four counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault while aided 

and abetted, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(5); two counts of first-degree aggravated 

sexual assault on a victim who was physically helpless, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7); 

four counts of second-degree sexual assault using physical force, N.J.S.A. 

2C:14-2(c)(1); three counts of second-degree sexual assault on a victim at least 

thirteen but less than sixteen year old, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4); three counts of 

third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); thirddegree invasion of privacy by filming intimate parts, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b); two 

counts of third-degree aggravated criminal sexual conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a);

and five counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). 

After merger and concurrent sentences, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate 

twenty-year prison term subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7, 

and a consecutive five-year sentence for invasion of privacy.1 Defendant's

petition for certification was denied. State v. Lewis, 223 N.J. 558 (2015). 

Over a year later, defendant filed for PCR alleging her trial counsel was 

ineffective because he failed to: (1) file a severance motion; (2) file a brief in 

1

 Co-defendant Melia received the same sentence. 
4

A-1260-18T4

support of Melia's suppression motion and did not adequately argue at the 

motion's hearing; (3) adequately conduct pre-trial investigation and consult with 

her prior to trial; and (4) file a motion for a new trial because the weight of the 

evidence did not support the verdict. Judge Cook, who was not the trial judge, 

denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.

II.

In this appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE 

DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE

CASE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS 

FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A SEVERANCE 

FROM HER CO-DEFENDANT AND FAILING TO 

CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION AND 

TO CONSULT WITH HER.

A. Trial Counsel Failed To Move For A 

Severance From The Co-defendant.

B. Trial Counsel Failed To Conduct An 

Adequate Investigation And To Consult 

With Defendant.

Applying the well-recognized two-prong test to establish ineffectiveness 

of counsel, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) and State v. 

Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), Judge Cook properly found defendant failed to 

establish a prima facie PCR claim that: (1) trial counsel's performance was 
5

A-1260-18T4

deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. We also 

agree with the judge's conclusion that consequently, defendant was not entitled 

to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992). Our 

reasoning follows.

A. Motion to Sever Trial

Defendant contends the judge erred in his analysis that counsel was not 

ineffective for seeking a separate trial from Melia. She asserts trial severance 

was necessary because her defense was antagonistic to Melia's defense because 

the "overwhelming bulk of [the State's] testimony" related to him; thereby

causing her undue prejudice. We disagree, as Judge Cook made the right call

that severance would not have been proper. 

Judge Cook found separate trials for defendants was not appropriate under 

State v. Sanchez, 143 N.J. 273, 282 (1996) (holding a joint trial is preferred

where the State's evidence against the defendants is common) and State v. 

Coleman, 46 N.J. 16, 24 (1965) (holding the potential prejudice to the 

defendant's due process rights must be balanced against judicial economy of a 

joint trial). The judge explained that given defendants' common defense strategy 

– the victims, instigated by one of the victims and her stepfather, fabricated their 

allegations – severance for separate trials would have undermined their strategy. 
6

A-1260-18T4

Because the victims' testimony and the video evidence applied against both 

defendants, the judge noted, "[t]wo separate trials would have been a waste of 

judicial resources, an inconvenience to witnesses and the victims, could have 

resulted in inconsistent verdicts and would have prevented a reliable assignment 

of culpability." Therefore, trial counsel was not deficient, and defendant did not 

satisfy the first Strickland prong. We also agree with the judge's determination 

that the second prong of Strickland was not satisfied because defendant failed 

to offer any "facts in support of her contention that she was prejudiced by the"

joint trial.

We further add that since a motion to sever would have been unsuccessful, 

trial counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a losing argument. State 

v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 360-61 (2009).

B. Inadequate Investigation/Not Consult with Defendant

Defendant asserts Judge Cook "did not address [her] general claim of 

inadequate investigation and lack of consultation regarding discovery." She 

contends trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation to formulate 

a defense strategy and failed to review discovery with her, thus preventing her 

from being able to participate in her defense. We again disagree.
7

A-1260-18T4

In recognizing the deference afforded to trial counsel's decisions

concerning the witnesses to present and the "art" involving such choice, State v. 

Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 321 (2005), Judge Cook found defendant's argument was 

hollow. The judge reasoned defendant made a bald assertion of failure to 

investigate because she 

provides no names, affidavits or anything else to 

support her allegation that there were witnesses who 

could have testified on her behalf. There is also nothing

to suggest that any unnamed witnesses would have been 

available or amenable to testifying on [her] behalf.

The judge further noted the victims' testimony and video evidence "was too 

overwhelming for any potential witness to change the outcome" of the guilty 

verdict. We discern no fault in this analysis. See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 

Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining there must be more than bald 

allegations of counsel's substandard investigation; the defendant's PCR petition 

lacked supporting affidavits setting forth personal knowledge of what a more 

thorough investigation would have revealed). 

Because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of counsel 

ineffectiveness, it was appropriate to deny her an evidentiary hearing. Preciose, 

129 N.J. at 462. To the extent we have not discussed them expressly, all other 
8

A-1260-18T4

arguments raised by defendants lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R.

2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.