SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 2156
- 15T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintif f
- 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 (St ephen 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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, 20172 A - 2156
- 15T1

Defendant Justin Hughes appeals from the denial of his petition for post
- conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. F or 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 second
degree 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, t he sentencing court imposed an aggregate sentence of eleven years subject t o a three
- year period of parole ineligibility . The details of the events leadi ng to defendant's arrest and conviction need not be repeated here fo r ou r purposes. Suffice it to say at the time defendant pled guilty , he had been charged in an e le ven 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 fo r the dismissal of all but two counts and recommend a max imum exposure of eleven years. Defendant filed a direct appeal, and an excessive sentencing panel of this court affirme d his sent en ce but

rema nded the matter for the trial court to correct t he judgment of conviction so that it reflected that the sen t e n ce on e ach3 A - 2156
- 15T1

count ran consecutivel y . 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.
Defenda nt 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 su bstitute 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, defendan t 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
pre pare a defense," and properly cross
- examine a State's witness, "did not use reports or testimony by a hired private inves tigator," and failed to s upply a written notice of witnesses , consult with defendant to "prepare the case," and "develop mitigating cir cumstances for sentencing purposes." In addition, defendant explained that he filed an ethics claim4 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 t he suppre ssion motion

an d accepted his plea, denied defendant's petition after considering counsels' oral arguments by order dat ed August 26,
20 15, accompanied by a sixteen
- page statement of re a sons. In his comprehensive written statement, Judge Peim rev ie wed
defe ndant'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 WHE THER [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 t rial 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 ( 19 87), 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

" a llegations of defense counsel's . . . disciplinary problems are, standing alone, insufficient to establish that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of6 A - 2156
- 15T1

reasonableness, as required under the first prong under the Strickland/Fritz s tandard." 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. Defe ndant here failed to satisfy that standa rd. Affirmed.