SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4081-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ABDUL L. PARKER, a/k/a

LAMONT PARKER, ABDUAL

PARKER, and LAMAR PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted November 18, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Vernoia and Susswein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 14-05-1032.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Joseph Anthony Manzo, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief). 

Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (John J. Lafferty, IV, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 7, 2020
2

A-4081-17T1

Defendant, Abdul Parker, appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. On the day scheduled 

for trial, defendant pled guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and one 

count of conspiracy to commit robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate 

fifteen-year sentence subject to the parole ineligibility term required under the 

No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. 

Defendant claims that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Specifically, defendant contends that his trial counsel provided 

constitutionally deficient assistance by not conducting a proper pretrial 

investigation, by not obtaining surveillance videos, by not filing pretrial motions 

including a motion for a Wade/Henderson1 hearing, by not reviewing the 

discovery with defendant, and by not preparing for trial. The PCR court 

determined that defendant failed to submit evidence to support any of his claims 

of ineffective assistance and also failed to establish that he suffered prejudice 

from his counsel's allegedly deficient performance. The PCR court 

characterized defendant's claims as "bald assertions" insufficient to justify an 

evidentiary hearing much less the vacation of his guilty pleas. 

1

 United States v. Wade, 338 U.S. 218 (1967); State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 

(2011). 
3

A-4081-17T1

We have reviewed the record on appeal in light of the applicable legal 

standards and conclude defendant’s contentions were properly rejected by the 

PCR court without the need for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the denial of 

PCR substantially for the reasons set forth in the PCR court’s written opinion. 

I.

Defendant raises the following contentions on this appeal: 

POINT I

AFTER [DEFENDANT] DEMONSTRATED THAT 

HIS COUNSEL WAS UNPREPARED FOR TRIAL, 

THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DETERMINING 

THAT THE [DEFENDANT] FAILED TO MAKE A 

PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

POINT II

BECAUSE [DEFENDANT] MADE A PRIMA FACIE 

SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

TRIAL COUNSEL, THE COURT MISAPPLIED ITS 

DISCRETION IN DENYING POST-CONVICTION 

RELIEF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A FULL 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 

POINT III

PCR COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT 

SUBMITTING AFFIDAVITS SUBSTANTIATING 

[DEFENDANT'S] CLAIMS. 
4

A-4081-17T1

II.

Post-conviction relief serves the same function as a federal writ of habeas 

corpus. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992). When petitioning for PCR, 

a defendant must establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that he 

or she is entitled to the requested relief. Ibid. To sustain that burden, the 

defendant must allege and articulate specific facts that "provide the court with 

an adequate basis on which to rest its decision." State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 

579 (1992). 

Defendant's PCR petition raises claims of constitutionally deficient 

assistance of counsel. Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution and Article 1, paragraph 10 of the State Constitution guarantee the 

right to effective assistance of counsel at all stages of criminal proceedings. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (citing McMann v. 

Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970)); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 

(1987). To establish a violation of the right to the effective assistance of 

counsel, a defendant must meet the two-part test articulated in Strickland. Fritz, 

105 N.J. at 58. "First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was 

deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 
5

A-4081-17T1

To meet the first prong of the Strickland test, a defendant must show "that 

counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' 

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Ibid. Reviewing courts indulge in a 

"strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of 

reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689. 

The second prong of the Strickland test requires the defendant to show 

"that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, 

a trial whose result is reliable." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Put differently, 

counsel's errors must create a "reasonable probability" that the outcome of the 

proceedings would have been different than if counsel had not made the errors. 

Id. at 694. This assessment is necessarily fact-specific to the context in which 

the alleged errors occurred. When a defendant seeks "[t]o set aside a guilty plea 

based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show . . . 'that there 

is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would 

not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. NunezValdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009) (quoting State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 

(1994) (alterations in original)). 

Short of obtaining immediate relief, a defendant may prove that an 

evidentiary hearing is warranted to develop the factual record in connection with 
6

A-4081-17T1

an ineffective assistance claim. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462–63. The PCR court 

should grant an evidentiary hearing when (1) a defendant is able to prove a prima 

facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) there are material issues of 

disputed fact that must be resolved with evidence outside of the record, and (3) 

the hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief. Id. at 462; R. 3:22-

10(b). To meet the burden of proving a prima facie case, a defendant must show 

a reasonable likelihood of success under the Strickland test. Preciose, 129 N.J. 

at 463. "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant 

to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Id. at 

462–63. 

"[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than 

make bald assertions that [he or she] was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). The 

petitioner must allege specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie claim. 

Ibid. Furthermore, the petitioner must present these facts in the form of 

admissible evidence. In other words, the relevant facts must be shown through 

"affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or 

the person making the certification." Ibid.
7

A-4081-17T1

III.

Applying the foregoing legal principles to the record before us, we 

conclude that defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he is entitled to vacate his guilty plea and, similarly, has not 

established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance sufficient to justify an 

evidentiary hearing. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 459, 463. Where, as here, a defendant 

claims his or her attorney failed to investigate the case, the defendant must state 

"the facts that an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or 

certifications." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013) (quoting Cummings, 

321 N.J. Super. at 170). In this instance, defendant has not presented any 

competent evidence showing, for example, what would have been found by the 

pretrial investigation defendant claims trial counsel should have undertaken. 

Relatedly, defendant has provided no competent evidence with respect to 

what the surveillance videos he refers to would have shown. Nor has defendant 

provided evidence to show that a Wade/Henderson motion would have had merit 

and would have resulted in the suppression of, or at least an adverse inference 

with respect to, an out-of-court identification that would have been used against 

him at trial. In sum, the record before us presents nothing more than the kind of 

"bald" assertions that afford no basis for post-conviction relief. 
8

A-4081-17T1

Finally, we note that defendant also claims in this appeal that his PCR 

counsel was ineffective in failing to assist defendant with preparing 

certifications and affidavits to support defendant's contentions that trial counsel 

was ineffective. "This relief is not predicated upon a finding of ineffective 

assistance of counsel under the relevant constitutional standard. Rule 3:22-6(d) 

imposes an independent standard of professional conduct upon an attorney 

representing a defendant in a PCR proceeding." State v. Hicks, 411 N.J. Super. 

370, 376 (App. Div. 2010). The Court has stated:

PCR counsel must communicate with the client, 

investigate the claims urged by the client, and 

determine whether there are additional claims that 

should be brought forward. Thereafter, counsel should 

advance all of the legitimate arguments that the record 

will support. If after investigation counsel can 

formulate no fair legal argument in support of a 

particular claim raised by defendant, no argument need 

be made on that point. Stated differently, the brief must 

advance the arguments that can be made in support of 

the petition and include defendant's remaining claims, 

either by listing them or incorporating them by 

reference so that the judge may consider them.

[State v. Webster, 187 N.J. 254, 257 (2006).]

"The remedy for counsel's failure to meet the[se] requirements . . . is a new PCR 

proceeding." Hicks, 411 N.J. Super. at 376 (citing State v. Rue, 175 N.J . 1, 4

(2002)). 
9

A-4081-17T1

Defendant's claims regarding his PCR counsel's ineffective assistance are 

nothing but "bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). As with 

his claim concerning the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, defendant is obligated to 

support his argument concerning PCR counsel's ineffectiveness under Rule 3:22-

6(d) with "affidavits or certifications." Ibid. Defendant has failed to provide this 

court with the necessary competent proofs to support his claim that he would have 

filed certifications and affidavits in support of his ineffectiveness claim regarding 

trial counsel. We refuse to speculate whether PCR counsel performed effectively in 

presenting defendant's contentions in the absence of competent "facts sufficient to 

demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance." Ibid. 

We appreciate that ineffective assistance by PCR counsel might be one 

reason defendant failed to support his PCR contentions with certifications or 

affidavits. There are also other possible reasons, including the possibility that 

defendant refused to subject himself to punishment by certifying to willfully 

false statements. R. 1:4-4. It is not our place to speculate on such matters, 

especially when there remains an opportunity for defendant to present this claim 

to a PCR judge. See Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) 

(citing Reynolds Offset Co. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 
10 A-4081-17T1

1959)). Our task on this appeal is to review the PCR court's ruling in view of 

the record before us. Defendant's claim on appeal that PCR counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance is no less "bald" than the contentions that were presented 

to the PCR court. 

Defendant is free to file a new PCR petition asserting that counsel 

assigned to represent him in the PCR court rendered ineffective assistance. R.

3:22-4(b)(2)(C). We would expect any such new petition to be supported by 

competent evidence that PCR counsel's performance was deficient, and that 

defendant suffered prejudice as a result. In that event, a Law Division PCR 

judge would have an opportunity to review the proffered evidence, convene an 

evidentiary hearing if appropriate, and issue a ruling that would be subject to 

appellate review on a fulsome record. 

Affirmed.