SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0419-15T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMES BAKER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Submitted August 30, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Vernoia.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 10-

01-0087.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (William Welaj, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Kimberly L. Donnelly, 

Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 7, 2017
2 A-0419-15T4

Defendant James Baker appeals from the denial of his petition 

for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree eluding, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b). The sentencing court imposed an aggregate 

sentence of eight years, subject to a four-year period of parole 

ineligibility. 

Defendant appealed and we affirmed his conviction and 

sentence in an unpublished opinion. State v. Baker, No. A-3943-

11 (App. Div. August 22, 2014).1 Defendant did not petition the 

Supreme Court for certification. The facts underlying defendant's 

conviction are set forth in our opinion and need not be repeated 

here.

Defendant filed a "verified" PCR petition on September 12, 

2014, that did not state any facts upon which defendant relied.

In his brief, defendant argued his constitutional right to a fair 

trial was violated because of the prosecutor's "knowing use of 

perjured testimony" against him and by his trial counsel's 

ineffective assistance. He claimed his attorney failed to 

 

1 We remanded the matter for recalculation of jail credits. Id.

at 45.
3 A-0419-15T4

interpose objections, properly cross examine witnesses and file 

"a motion for a Franks[2] hearing."

A brief was submitted on behalf of defendant in March 2015. 

In this brief, defendant argued trial counsel "failed to properly

investigate and prepare pre-trial through sentencing and induced 

the defendant into foregoing a plea" and going to trial. Defendant

also contended that he established a prima facie claim for PCR and 

was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

3 

Judge Regina Caulfield considered counsels' oral arguments 

on June 1, 2015, and entered an order denying defendant's petition 

after placing on the record a comprehensive oral decision setting 

forth her findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judge 

carefully reviewed the applicable law and defendant's contentions,

and found that his arguments had no evidentiary support, stating 

that all defendant's allegations were "b[a]ld assertions."

4

 

2 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 

667 (1978).

3 Neither defendant nor his attorney submitted an amended 

verified petition, affidavit, or certification setting forth any 

facts relating to defendant's arguments as required by Rule 3:22-

10(c).

4 See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.)

("a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that he was 

denied the effective assistance of counsel"), certif. denied, 162 

N.J. 199 (1999).
4 A-0419-15T4

In a brief filed on his behalf, defendant presents the 

following issue for our consideration in his appeal: 

THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO RECEIVE

ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM 

TRIAL COUNSEL SINCE, AS A RESULT OF 

COUNSEL'S ASSURANCE THAT HE WOULD BE 

EXONERATED AT TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT 

REJECTED A PLEA RECOMMENDATION 

PRESENTED BY THE STATE REGARDING 

SEVERAL OUTSTANDING CASES AND 

INSTEAD PROCEEDED TO TRIAL, 

SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVING A SENTENCE 

SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THAT 

EMBODIED IN THE PLEA OFFER, WHICH 

WARRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

Defendant filed a supplemental pro se brief in which he 

presents the following additional arguments:

POINT I

[DEFENDANT]'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

TO A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED WITH 

THE KNOWING USE OF PERJURED 

TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

POINT II

[DEFENDANT] WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED 

UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.

We are not persuaded by any of these arguments and find that

they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for 

the reasons stated by Judge Caulfield in her thorough decision.

Affirmed.