SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2195-20

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARNELL L. WHYE, JR.,

a/k/a DARNELL L. WHYE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted August 30, 2022 – Decided September 6, 2022

Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 15-07-1978.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Steven J. Sloan, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Grace C. MacAulay, Camden County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Maura Murphy Sullivan, 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-2195-20

Defendant Darnell L. Whye, Jr. appeals from the Law Division's August 

10, 2020 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an 

evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

A Camden County grand jury charged defendant in a two-count 

indictment with first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7),

and third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a). 

Defendant pled guilty to an amended charge of second-degree sexual assault, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1). In accordance with the terms of defendant's negotiated 

plea, the trial judge sentenced defendant to seven years in prison subject to the 

No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, Parole Supervision for Life, and 

Megan's Law reporting and registration requirements.

Defendant appealed his sentence. We heard the appeal on our Excessive 

Sentence Oral Argument calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11, and affirmed 

defendant's sentence. State v. Whye, No. A-2041-18 (App. Div. Sept. 25, 2019).

Defendant then filed a timely petition for PCR. Among other things, 

defendant asserted his attorney provided him with ineffective assistance because 

he: (1) failed to file a motion to suppress his confession; (2) pressured defendant 

to plead guilty; (3) neglected to review the discovery file with defendant; and 

(4) failed to discuss trial strategy with defendant.
3

A-2195-20

Following oral argument, the PCR judge rendered a thorough oral decision 

concluding that defendant did not satisfy the two-prong test of Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which requires a showing that trial 

counsel's performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, 

the result would have been different. The judge found that defendant presented 

no evidence that a suppression motion would have succeeded, and that 

defendant's other arguments were belied by the record.

On appeal, defendant raises the same arguments he unsuccessfully 

presented to the PCR judge. Defendant contends:

THE PCR COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN 

DENYING . . . DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR 

[PCR] WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS 

HIS CONTENTION HE WAS PROVIDED WITH 

INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

1. Plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a 

motion to suppress defendant's alleged statement to the 

police.

2. Plea counsel was also ineffective for pressuring 

defendant to plead guilty, for failing to review 

discovery with defendant[,] and for failing to discuss 

trial strategy with defendant.

3. Defendant should have been permitted to 

withdraw his plea bargain to correct a manifest 

injustice.
4

A-2195-20

When petitioning for PCR, the defendant must establish, by a 

preponderance of the credible evidence, that he is entitled to the requested relief. 

State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 541 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 

(1992). 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).

The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an 

evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions 

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 

N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). Rather, trial courts should grant 

evidentiary hearings and make a determination on the merits only if the 

defendant has presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance, material 

issues of disputed facts lie outside the record, and resolution of the issues 

necessitates a hearing. R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013). 

We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an evidentiary 

hearing for abuse of discretion. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the 

defendant is obliged to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's 

performance was deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a 
5

A-2195-20

fair trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). 

There is a strong presumption that counsel "rendered adequate assistance and 

made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional 

judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Further, because prejudice is not 

presumed, Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52, the defendant must demonstrate "how specific 

errors of counsel undermined the reliability" of the proceeding. United States 

v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.26 (1984). 

Having considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the 

applicable law, we affirm the denial of defendant's PCR petition substantially 

for the reasons detailed at length in the PCR judge's oral opinion. We discern 

no abuse of discretion in the judge's consideration of the issues, or in his decision 

to deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We are satisfied that the 

trial attorney's performance was not deficient, and defendant provided nothing 

more than bald assertions to the contrary.

Affirmed.