SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 2940
- 14T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff
- Respondent,

v. DARNELL STOVALL,

Defendant
- Appellant.

_________________________________________

Submitted October 25, 2016

– Decided Before Judges Messano and Guadagno. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 07
- 09
- 0125. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Keri
Leigh Schaefer, 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court .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.

February 23, 20172 A - 2940
- 14T3

Defendant Darnell Stovall appeals from the January 6, 2015 Law Division order denying his petition for post
- conviction relief (PCR) , raising three points:

POINT I
THE ORDER DENYING PO ST - CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED A ND THE MATTER REMAND ED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARI NG BECAUSE DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWIN G OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSE L.
POINT II
THE ORDER DENYING PO ST - CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE REVERSED B ECAUSE IT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANC E OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEE D BY THE SIXTH AMEND MENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
POINT III
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DE NYING DEFENDANT'S POST - CONVICTION RELI EF MOTION TO SET ASI DE HIS GUILTY PLEA PURSUANT TO STATE V. SLATER . [ 1 ] We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable law and we affirm. On December 14, 2006, defendant and two others , Quemer e McClendon and Paul Lewis, were driven to the home of Keith
M ason , intending to rob Mason of marijuana. McClend o n was carrying a loaded handgun. Defendant also had a handgun , but claimed it was not loaded.

1 198 N.J. 145 (2009).3 A - 2940
- 14T3

McClendon entered Mason's home first, followed by defendant and Lewis. Mason's two
- year - old son was in the home when the three entered. Mason and McClendon began "tussling" and McClendon shot Mason in the chest , killing him . The three fled, leaving Mason's son alone with his father's body. A grand j ury sitting in Monmouth County, returned an indictment charging d efendant with first
- degree felony murder, (count fourteen); first
- degree murder, (count fifteen); first
degree armed robbery, (count thirteen ) ; second
- degree conspiracy to commit armed burgla ry and armed robbery, (count ten); second
degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, (count eleven); second
- degree burglary, (count twelve); and th i rd
degree endangering the welfare of a child, (count sixteen). On March 19, 2009, defendant app eared before Judge Anthony J. Mellaci, Jr. , and pled guilty to counts ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and sixteen pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement which required defendant to cooperate and testify truthfully in the trial of his co
- defendants. In ret urn, the S tate ag r eed to dismiss the two murder counts and recommend an eighteen
- year sentence on the armed robbery count. Before defendant was sentenced, Judge Mellaci vacated
defendant's guilty plea for failing to comply with provisions of his plea agree ment. On May 2, 2011, a grand jury returned an4 A - 2940
- 14T3

indictment charging defendant with first
- degree witness tampering. On May 12, 2011, defendant appeared before Judge Mellaci
and pled guilty pursuant to a revised plea agreement to counts ten (robbery conspira cy), fourteen (amended from felony mu r der to aggravated manslaughter), and sixteen (endangering). The State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, including the witness tampering indictment and recommend ed a twenty - two year
sentence subject to the Grave s Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43
- 6(c) , and the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43
- 7.2.
After Judge Mellaci sentenced defendant in accordance with the revised plea agreement, defendant appealed his sentence. We heard the appeal at our Excessive Sentence Oral Argument panel and affirmed defendant's sentence. Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition. C ounsel was assigned and filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition. Judge Mellaci heard oral argument on January 6, 2015 , and denied the petition without a hearing. Defendant now claims, as he did before Judge Mellaci, that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that his sentence would be subject to the Graves Act or NERA, and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and proc eed to trial.5 A - 2940
- 14T3

Judge Mellaci rejected defendant's claim that his plea counsel was ineffective for not spending enough time with him, noting that the same attorney represented defendant for almost four years, from his first arraignment in November 2007, thro ugh his first guilty plea in March 2009, for his second guilty plea in May 2011 , and for his sentence in August 2011 . During this time, counsel met with defendant on "multiple occasions in an attempt to resolve this matter." Judge Mellaci read from the tr anscript of defendant's first guilty plea where defendant acknowledged that plea counsel explained the charges, the plea proceedings, and defendant understood them and was satisfied with counsel's representation . Judge Mellaci specifically explained to de fendant that his sentence may be subject to NERA and the Graves Act. Judge Mellaci then read from the transcript of defendant's second guilty plea , including defendant's acknowledgement that he understood the implications of the Graves Act and NERA on his
sentence:
THE COURT: S o, you understand that normally

on a second degree conspiracy such as this, I could put you in jail for up to ten years and order up to five years minimum parole ineligibility. Do you understand?
DEFENDANT: Yes.6 A - 2940
- 14T3 THE COURT: In ad dition, because this is a conspiracy to commit an armed robbery and/or burglary, you're subject to the No Early Release Act, where you would have to serve . . . 85 per c ent of your maximum sentence. Do you understand?
DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: So, you would have to serve minimum approximately of eight years, six months and two days. Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: On Count 14 as amended to aggravated manslaughter, do you understand you're exposed to up to 30 years in jail, w here . . . you would would have to do up to half that time as minimum parole ineligibility under the Graves Act? Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And under the No Early Release Act, you would have to serve 85 percent of that time. D o you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: So , if I were to give you a 30
- year sentence and we figure in 85 percent, your exposure would be approximately 25 years, six months and two days. Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must satisfy the two
- part test established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme7 A - 2940
- 14T3

Court in State v. Fritz , 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). Defendant must show that his attorney's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland , supra , 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. There is a " ' strong presumption ' that [ defense ] counsel exercised

' reasonable professional judgment ' and ' sound trial strategy ' in fulfilling his [ or her ] responsibilities. " State v. Hess , 207
N.J. 123, 147 (2011) (citing Strickland , supra , 466 U.S. at 689
- 90 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065
- 66 , 80 L. Ed. 2d at 694
- 95). We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. State v. Preciose , 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992). An evidentiary hearing is required only when a defendant est ablishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, the court determines that there are disputed issues of material fact that cannot be resolved by review of the existing record, and the court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the cl aims asserted. R. 3:22
- 10(b). A prima facie case is established when a defendant 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." I bid. The transcript of defendant's plea allocution completely contradicts defendant's claim that he did not understand his8 A - 2940
- 14T3

sentence because plea counsel failed to explain the Graves Act or NERA. Defendant has not satisfied either prong of Strickland , and Judge Mellaci correctly denied his petition without a hearing. Defendant's argument that Judge Mellaci erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea lacks sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in our opinion, Rule 2:11
- 3(e)(2),
and we af firm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mellaci's comprehensive oral decision. Affirmed.