SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0224-22 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

ORRIC MITCHELL, a/k/a 

JASUAH CARSTERFIN, 

JASUAH CARSTERIN, 

ORRIC MITCHEL, 

OMAR THOMAS, 

MICHAEL THOMAS, and 

OQUAN THOMPSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________

Submitted February 14, 2024 – Decided April 9, 2024 

Before Judges Gummer and Walcott-Henderson. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 18-01-0133.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Frank J. Pugliese, Designated Counsel, on 

the 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-0224-22

Bradley Daniel Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (William Kyle Meighan, 

Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 Defendant Orric Mitchell appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief 

(PCR) petition, which was decided without an evidentiary hearing. Perceiving 

no abuse of discretion in Judge Guy P. Ryan's decision to forego an evidentiary 

hearing and agreeing with his finding that defendant did not establish a prima 

facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm. 

A jury convicted defendant of third-degree possession of a controlled 

dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); third-degree possession 

of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(3), and thirddegree distribution of CDS, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(3). The jury 

acquitted him of fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law, N.J.S.A. 

2C:29-1(a). Defendant received an aggregate imprisonment term of nine years 

with a four-year period of parole ineligibility. 

We affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded for resentencing. State 

v. Mitchell, No. A-1571-19 (App. Div. Apr. 30, 2021) (slip op. at 7). On 

remand, the trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate imprisonment term 
3 A-0224-22

of eight years and, pursuant to a joint motion filed by the parties, did not impose 

a period of parole ineligibility. 

In his pro se PCR petition, defendant asserted his trial counsel had 

rendered ineffective assistance but did not specify any basis for that assertion. 

In his brief, defendant's appointed PCR counsel argued trial counsel had been 

ineffective in failing to object during the trial to a question asked by the 

prosecutor of a police detective about why he had requested consent to search a 

motel room. The detective answered: "I believed there to be additional 

quantities of heroin in the room." PCR counsel contended trial counsel, by 

failing to object to the question, had "deprived appellate counsel of a more 

effective argument as to the suppression of [the detective's] testimony." In our 

opinion on defendant's direct appeal, however, we concluded the detective's 

"belief that there was heroin in the room did not invade the jury's province as to 

the elements of the crime" and, thus, was not capable of impacting the jury's 

ultimate decision on whether defendant possessed the heroin with the intent to 

distribute it or if he had actually distributed it. Id. at 7-8. We also noted the 

strength of the evidence before the jury. Id. at 13. 

PCR counsel also asserted trial counsel was unprepared for trial, citing 

counsel's request for a break before his cross-examination of the detective and 
4 A-0224-22

his failure to ask the detective about a purported discrepancy regarding the CDS 

evidence. According to PCR counsel, trial counsel's purported cumulative 

errors deprived defendant of a fair trial. 

After hearing argument, Judge Ryan denied defendant's petition in a 

twenty-one-page opinion and corresponding order. Defendant raises the 

following arguments on appeal: 

POINT I 

DEFENDANT PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE 

CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL. DEFENDANT’S CLAIM IS

SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL ISSUES OF 

DISPUTED FACTS LYING OUTSIDE THE 

RECORD. THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTED 

FACTS NECESSITATED AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING. THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FAILING 

TO CONDUCT SUCH A HEARING. 

A. Trial Counsel's Failure to Object. 

B. Trial Counsel Was Unprepared for Trial. 

POINT II 

CUMULATIVE ERRORS COMMITTED BY 

COUNSEL VIEWED IN THE AGGREGATE 

DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. 

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Ryan's 

comprehensive opinion. The judge acknowledged defendant's arguments 
5 A-0224-22

concerning the questioning of the detective and the purported evidential 

discrepancy were potentially procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5 based 

on his belief those issues already had been addressed on the merits. The judge 

nevertheless substantively considered those arguments and correctly rejected 

them. 

We discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Ryan's decision to forego an 

evidentiary hearing. See State v. L.G.-M., 462 N.J. Super. 357, 365 (App. Div. 

2020) (holding "[w]e review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a defendant's 

request for a hearing under an abuse of discretion standard"). A petitioner is not 

automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 

355 (2013); see also State v. Vanness, 474 N.J. Super. 609, 623 (App. Div. 2023) 

(holding "[t]he mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to 

an evidentiary hearing"). 

Rule 3:22-10(b) provides that a court should hold an evidentiary hearing 

on a PCR petition only if the defendant establishes a prima facie case in support 

of PCR, "there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by 

reference to the existing record," and "an evidentiary hearing is necessary to 

resolve the claims for relief." See also Porter, 216 N.J. at 354; Vanness, 474 

N.J. Super. at 623. "A prima facie case is established when a defendant 
6 A-0224-22

demonstrates 'a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts 

alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on 

the merits.'" Id. at 355 (quoting R. 3:22-10(b)). Defendant did not meet that 

standard, and, thus, Judge Ryan did not abuse his discretion by deciding the 

petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

 Affirmed.