SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3261-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMES LEROY BAXTER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted October 15, 2020 – Decided 

Before Judges Whipple and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 90-01-0093.

James Baxter, appellant pro se. 

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Narline Casimir, Assistant Prosecutor, 

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant James Baxter appeals pro se from a March 12, 2019, trial court 

order denying his motions to compel discovery, for removal to federal court, to 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 10, 2020
2

A-3261-18T4

correct an illegal sentence and assign counsel, as well as the denial of his petition 

for post-conviction relief (PCR) and his amendments to his petition. We affirm 

for the reasons stated by Judge Timothy Lydon in his written decision. 

 Defendant was convicted by a jury in 1991 with first-degree murder, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); first-degree 

robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and 2C:2-6; third-degree theft by unlawful taking, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) and 2C:2-6; and second-degree possession of a weapon for 

an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) and 2C:2-6. He was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of life imprisonment with a thirty-year term of parole 

ineligibility, and an additional concurrent sentence of twenty years with ten

years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and 

the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Baxter, 134 N.J. 568 (1993).

Defendant filed a PCR petition, which was denied and affirmed on appeal, and 

the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Baxter, 161 N.J. 335 (1999).

Defendant filed this second petition for PCR and moved for a new trial in 

September 2018, asserting newly-discovered evidence. The newly-discovered 

evidence was that a cooperating witness, Ronald Granville, had a pending 

indictment undisclosed at the time of trial that could have been used by 

defendant during cross-examination to undermine Granville's credibility. The 
3

A-3261-18T4

court denied defendant's second PCR petition as well as other requested relief

in an omnibus order of March 12, 2019. Defendant's appeal herein only 

addresses the denial of his motion for a new trial and his motion to correct an 

illegal sentence. He argues the following:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED 

ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

[DEFENDANT'S] MOTION TO CORRECT AN 

ILLEGAL SENTENCE.

In his March 2019 written decision, Judge Lydon concluded defendant's 

arguments regarding Granville's undisclosed indictment are procedurally barred.

The court concluded:

In the amendment to your PCR, you raise a new 

ineffective assistance claim. You assert that your 

attorney "failed to make reasonable efforts to learn of 

the State's key witness' criminal history.". . . . You 

assert that "had the jury been informed of the 

suppressed pending indictments, full criminal history, 

and the sentence considerations Granville would be 

receiving for his testimony resulting in bias, it is 

'reasonably probable' that the result of the proceeding 

would have been different.". . . . Your new ineffective 

assistance claim is procedurally barred. Under Rule

3:22-4, any PCR claim "that reasonably could have 

been raised in a prior proceeding" is barred from
4

A-3261-18T4

assertion in a future proceeding. Your trial was held 

over [twenty-seven] years ago in February 1991. More 

than three years passed between your trial and the 

submission of your first PCR on August 31, 1994. You 

had an opportunity during this period of time to identify 

and substantiate any ineffective assistance claims 

against your attorney. In fact, your first PCR made 

several allegations of ineffective assistance, including 

the claim that your attorney failed to inform the court 

of a conflict of interest. You certainly could have

raised your new ineffective assistance claims as a part 

of your first PCR. It is clear that your claim does not

rest on a previously unknown "factual predicate." Rule

3:22-4. Instead, you simply contend that your trial 

attorney failed to explore Granville's alleged bias. 

Because you were in a position to assert this argument 

at a prior PCR proceeding, you are not permitted [to]

pursue it in this subsequent petition.

The court also concluded defendant's claims regarding Granville were 

barred by Rule 3:22-4 because they could have been raised on direct appeal. 

The court stated defendant's arguments regarding Granville lacked substantive 

merit because "[i]n order to establish a Brady1 violation the defense must 

demonstrate that (1) the prosecution failed to disclose the evidence, (2) the 

evidence was of a favorable character for the defense; and (3) the evidence was 

material. State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 311 (1981)." The court further stated

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
5

A-3261-18T4

defendant had not met the test to demonstrate the evidence had "the propensity 

to influence the outcome of the trial."

Finally, the court concluded defendant's assertions were not sufficient to 

meet the Strickland/Fritz2standard for ineffective assistance claims. Based on 

our review of the record, we discern no error requiring us to disturb the denial 

of the petition nor the denial of a motion for a new trial.

 We also reject defendant's second argument regarding sentencing. Based 

on our review, the application of aggravating factor N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(1) did 

not render the sentence illegal. 

Affirmed.

2

 State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopting the standard set forth in Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).