SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2156-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN HUGHES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Submitted August 30, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Vernoia.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Union County, 

Indictment No. 11-02-0198.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Steven E. Braun, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Grace H. Park, Acting Union County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen 

William Bondi, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 8, 2017
2 A-2156-15T1

Defendant Justin Hughes appeals from the denial of his 

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

hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Defendant pled guilty to second-degree possession of a 

controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2), and seconddegree possession of a firearm while in the course of committing 

a narcotics offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a). On October 26, 

2012, the sentencing court imposed an aggregate sentence of 

eleven years subject to a three-year period of parole 

ineligibility.

The details of the events leading to defendant's arrest and 

conviction need not be repeated here for our purposes. Suffice 

it to say at the time defendant pled guilty, he had been charged 

in an eleven count indictment that exposed him to a possible 

sentence of sixty-five years, and the court had already denied 

his motion to suppress. His plea agreement called for the

dismissal of all but two counts and recommend a maximum exposure 

of eleven years.

Defendant filed a direct appeal, and an excessive 

sentencing panel of this court affirmed his sentence but 

remanded the matter for the trial court to correct the judgment 

of conviction so that it reflected that the sentence on each 
3 A-2156-15T1

count ran consecutively. State v. Hughes, No. A-3621-12 (App. 

Div. June 3, 2014). The sentencing court entered an amended 

judgment of conviction on June 24, 2014.

Defendant filed a PCR petition on August 13, 2014, in which 

he did not argue any specific acts of ineffective assistance of

counsel, but contended that while he recognized his petition 

could not be a substitute for direct appeal, "under the unique 

circumstances here present this matter falls under the 

exceptions . . . in R[ule] 3:22-4(a)."

A brief and amended petition were subsequently submitted on 

behalf of defendant. In the brief, defendant argued that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial 

counsel's conflicts that were created by "ethics violations" and 

by counsel's "failure to call a key witness." Defendant also 

claimed that counsel failed to adequately "investigat[e] and 

prepare a defense," and properly cross-examine a State's 

witness, "did not use reports or testimony by a hired private 

investigator," and failed to supply a written notice of 

witnesses, consult with defendant to "prepare the case," and 

"develop mitigating circumstances for sentencing purposes." In 

addition, defendant explained that he filed an ethics claim 
4 A-2156-15T1

against trial counsel who was suspended from the practice of law 

after the date of defendant's sentencing.

1

Judge Stuart Peim, who had decided the suppression motion

and accepted his plea, denied defendant's petition after 

considering counsels' oral arguments by order dated August 26, 

2015, accompanied by a sixteen-page statement of reasons. In 

his comprehensive written statement, Judge Peim reviewed 

defendant's contentions and the applicable law. Judge Peim also 

observed that trial counsel's ethics issues related to claims 

totally unrelated to defendant and were not the subject of any 

investigation or involvement by the same prosecutor's office 

that was responsible for the claims against defendant, but 

resulted in counsel being barred from the practice of law before 

defendant was sentenced. In addition, the judge found that 

defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance were not 

supported by any proof.

Defendant presents the following issues for our 

consideration in his appeal: 

 

1 In fact, trial counsel had been suspended after defendant 

pled guilty but before his sentencing. See In re Chambers, 217 

N.J. 196 (2014). A different attorney appeared on defendant's 

behalf at sentencing. 
5 A-2156-15T1

POINT I

THE FACT THAT TRIAL DEFENSE 

COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT OCCURRED 

OUTSIDE OF UNION COUNTY IS NOT 

DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE OF 

WHETHER [DEFENDANT] WAS DENIED 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; 

RATHER, ANY INSTANCE OF ILLEGAL 

CONDUCT BY AN ATTORNEY IN NEW 

JERSEY SHOULD AMOUNT TO [PER SE]

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

FOR ANY CLIENT ABSENT A VALID 

WAIVER BY THE CLIENT.

POINT II

TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT 

ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE THE CASE, 

THEREBY RESULTING IN INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

We are not persuaded by any of these arguments. We 

conclude that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of 

ineffectiveness of trial counsel, see Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. 

Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987), and affirm substantially for the 

reasons expressed by Judge Peim in his thoughtful written 

decision. Accordingly, Judge Peim correctly concluded that an 

evidentiary hearing was not warranted. See State v. Preciose, 

129 N.J. 452, 462-63 (1992). We only add our observation that 

"allegations of defense counsel's . . . disciplinary problems 

are, standing alone, insufficient to establish that defense 

counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of 
6 A-2156-15T1

reasonableness, as required under the first prong under the 

Strickland/Fritz standard." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 369 

(2008). They may be relevant, however, if the questioned 

conduct that was the subject of such proceedings is similar to 

the issues raised on the PCR. Id. at 372. Defendant here

failed to satisfy that standard.

Affirmed.