SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4317-17T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NICHOLAS A. BROWN, a/k/a

NICHOLAS ANTHONY

BROWN, ANTHONY BROWN,

STRESS, and KNIT,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted September 23, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Sumners and Natali.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 12-01-

0044.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Kisha M.S. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Christopher L.C. Kuberiet, Acting Middlesex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie D. Piderit,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 29, 2019
2

A-4317-17T4

Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Nicholas A. Brown appeals from a September 11, 2017 order 

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

hearing. Before us, he presents the following arguments:

POINT I:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST

CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING 

HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 

DETERMINE THE MERITS OF HIS CONTENTION 

THAT HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO THE 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO 

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

A. The Prevailing Legal Principles Regarding 

Claims Of Ineffective Assistance Of 

Counsel, Evidentiary Hearings And 

Petitions For Post Conviction Relief.

B. Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal 

Representation By Virtue Of Her Failure 

To Conduct A Thorough Pretrial 

Investigation Into The Potential 

Affirmative Defense Of Insanity And Her 

Failure To Call An Expert To Testify 

About Defendant's Mental Illness. (Da 35-

60)
3

A-4317-17T4

C. Defendant Is Entitled To A Remand To 

The Trial Court To Afford Him An 

Evidentiary Hearing To Determine The 

Merits Of His Contention That He Was 

Denied The Effective Assistance Of Trial 

Counsel.

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal standards, we are 

unpersuaded by defendant's arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons 

set forth by the PCR judge in his written decision.

The procedural history and trial evidence are detailed in our unpublished 

decision opinion affirming defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, 

State v. Brown, No. A-3356-12 (App. Div. Jan. 8, 2016), certif. denied, 224 N.J. 

529 (2016), and in the PCR judge's written decision opinion dated October 31, 

2014. A brief summary will suffice here. 

On September 22, 2011, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Woodbridge Police 

Officers Thomas Ganci and Joseph Dutcher were patrolling in a marked vehicle 

when they saw defendant, sitting alone in a parked car in the parking lot of an 

apartment complex. As they approached defendant's car on foot, another vehicle 

drove by and someone inside yelled something indecipherable. Defendant then 

drove past the officers, nearly hitting Ganci. Dutcher then banged on the 

window of defendant's car to alert him to stop, but defendant sped away. The 

officers' ensuing car chase concluded when defendant's car came to a stop after 
4

A-4317-17T4

colliding into a retaining wall. Defendant tried to escape on foot, but was

apprehended by Dutcher. 

A subsequent search incident to defendant's arrest resulted in the seizure 

of multiple controlled dangerous substances (CDS) and $787. At trial, the State

presented the testimony of an expert in the field of CDS to establish that 

defendant had the intent to sell the CDS and that the money was from the sale 

of CDS.

A jury found defendant guilty of multiple offenses: third-degree 

possession of heroin; third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute; 

second-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a 

public park; third-degree possession of cocaine; third-degree possession of 

cocaine with intent to distribute; second-degree possession of cocaine with 

intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public park; second-degree eluding; and 

fourth-degree resisting arrest. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate 

extended prison term of fifteen years with a five-year period of parole 

ineligibility. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, State v. 

Brown, No. A-3356-12 (App. Div. Jan. 8, 2016), and his petition for certification

was denied. 224 N.J. 529 (2016). 
5

A-4317-17T4

Shortly thereafter, defendant filed a PCR petition alleging his trial counsel 

was ineffective because she failed to: (1) consult with, hire, or call to testify an 

expert to substantiate his schizoaffective disorder in order to present an insanity 

defense; (2) consult with, hire, or call to testify an expert in the field of forensic 

video analysis to evaluate the operation of the officers' motor vehicle recording 

device; (3) challenge original unsworn complaints as to probable cause and lack 

of a neutral judicial officer's signature; (4) challenge judicial and prosecutorial

misconduct in hiding evidence; and (5) investigate defense witnesses who 

observed defendant prior to an ensuing police chase. He also contended

appellate counsel failed to argue judicial or prosecutorial misconduct and made 

erroneous arguments regarding the illegality of his extended term sentences.

The PCR judge, who was also the trial judge, issued an order denying PCR 

without an evidentiary hearing. In his appeal to us, defendant maintains the 

judge erred in not recognizing his schizoaffective diagnosis that was rendered 

prior to his arrest, and would have supported an insanity defense. He maintains 

that if the defense had been presented at trial, the jury would have found him 

not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus, he asserts a remand is necessary so he 

can present the merits of the contention at an evidentiary hearing. We see no 

cause to disagree with the PCR judge's order. 
6

A-4317-17T4

Applying the well-recognized two-prong test to establish ineffectiveness 

of counsel, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) and State v. 

Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), the judge found there was no prima facie claim 

that: (1) trial counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient 

performance prejudiced the defense. As to the first prong, the judge stated in 

his written decision, "the record indicates that defense counsel had defendant 

evaluated and the conclusions of that evaluation stated that defendant lacked an 

affirmative defense for mental incapacity. Moreover, [d]efendant received 

inpatient drug treatment and there was no diagnosis of [s]chizoaffective 

disorder." And as to the second prong, the judge noted, "it is highly unlikely 

even if [defendant] could show that he suffered a mental incapacity, the outcome 

of the trial would have been different." Since no prima facie claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel was established, the judge correctly applied State v. 

Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992), to determine defendant was not entitled to 

an evidentiary hearing. 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR 

judge in his written decision. We only add that defendant's contention he could 

have presented a viable insanity defense is a bald assertion not "supported by 

affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or 
7

A-4317-17T4

the person making the certification." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 

170 (App. Div. 1999) (citing R. 1:6-6); see also State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 

312 (2014) (holding affidavits or certifications supporting PCR petitions must 

identify the facts sought to be established with particularity). Defendant failed 

to submit an affidavit or certification by someone qualified to assert that 

defendant had a mental disorder at the time of the crimes that would have 

justified an affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Affirmed.