SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2378-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVEN B. TRAINER, a/k/a

STEVE JOHNSON, STEVEN

JOHNSON, STEVEN B. JOHNSON,

STEVEN TRAINOR, STEVEN B. TRAINOR,

BRUCE TURNER, BRUCE S. TURNER,

STEVEN GRAINOR, GREG TRAINER,

GREGORY TRAINER, GREGORY

ARTHUR TRAINER, STEPHEN

TRAINER, STEVEN TRAINERS,

and BOB TURNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted October 17, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court, Law Division, 

Passaic County, Indictment No. 13-05-0504.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Anderson D. Harkov, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 13, 2017
2 A-2378-15T1

Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Tom Dominic Osadnik, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Following the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, 

defendant Steven B. Trainer pled guilty to second-degree 

conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a) and N.J.S.A.

2C:15-1(a)(1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced 

in the third-degree range, to three years in prison, subject to 

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

imposed concurrent to an aggregate nine-year sentence he was 

currently serving. Defendant also received 774 days of jail credit 

and 1036 days of gap time, which would subsume virtually the entire 

three-year term. 

Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction, and 

from the September 25, 2014 order denying his motion to dismiss 

the indictment. He raises the following arguments:

POINT ONE: THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO 

ORDER THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TO 

ASSIGN COUNSEL TO CONFER WITH DEFENDANT ON 

WHETHER IT WAS IN HIS BEST INTEREST TO FILE A 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEPRIVED 

DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

POINT TWO: THE LAW DIVISION ERRED WHEN IT 

DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE STATE MISLED THE GRAND 

JURY BY PRESENTING TESTIMONY THAT ERRONEOUSLY 
3 A-2378-15T1

CLAIMED DEFENDANT CONFESSED TO THE CHARGE IN 

THE INDICTMENT.

Finding no merit in either argument, we affirm. 

We begin by addressing defendant's motion to dismiss the 

indictment, based on his assertion that the testifying police 

officer misled the grand jury. A trial judge should not dismiss 

an indictment except "on the 'clearest and plainest ground.'"

State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228 (1996) (citation omitted). We 

review the trial judge's decision for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 229. We affirm on this point substantially for the reasons 

stated by Judge Donna Gallucio in her comprehensive written opinion 

accompanying the September 25, 2014 order. We add these brief 

comments. 

Defendant was accused of driving a blue Hyundai Santa Fe

through the parking lot of a Target store, reaching his arm out 

the window, and grabbing a purse off the shoulder of a woman who 

was walking through the lot. The victim described the attack, in 

which she fell to the ground and was injured. The incident was 

also recorded by a store security camera. The video depicted a 

distinctive-looking blue Hyundai Santa Fe with gray trim, a white 

sticker in the window, and a large dent in the driver's side 

fender. The police eventually determined that defendant had 

probably been the driver. The arresting officer first observed 
4 A-2378-15T1

defendant driving a Hyundai that matched the car in the video, and 

then arrested defendant as he was about to enter the Hyundai on a 

second occasion. Defendant waived his Miranda1 rights and gave 

the police a statement. 

Responding to leading questions from the prosecutor, the 

arresting officer confirmed to the grand jury that defendant 

"indicated that he was the operator of the Hyundai Santa Fe in 

question." In response to the next question, the officer agreed 

with the prosecutor that defendant "could not recall the details 

of . . . being in the . . . Target parking lot on that day in 

question." In his suppression motion, defendant argued that the 

officer's testimony was misleading because it would have led the 

jury to believe that defendant admitted driving the Hyundai in the 

Target parking lot on the day of the robbery, when in fact he did 

not make that admission. 

In his statement to the police, defendant admitted, in 

general, that he was the driver of the Hyundai, a vehicle he was

buying from a friend. He also stated that he could not recall 

what occurred in the Target parking lot. However, he inferentially 

admitted the robbery, telling the police that he did not mean to 

hurt anyone: "All I'm thinking is that look, it was just safe. 

 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 

694 (1966). 
5 A-2378-15T1

Nobody gets hurt." We agree with Judge Gallucio's conclusions

that: there was sufficient evidence to support the indictment, 

each separate statement to which the officer testified was 

accurate, and any ambiguity in the officer's testimony did not 

"affect[] the grand jurors' ability to make an informed decision 

whether to indict." State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 229-30 (1996).

Accordingly, we find no abuse of Judge Gallucio's discretion in 

denying the motion to dismiss the indictment. See id. at 229. 

Defendant's argument concerning the appointment of a second 

attorney is without merit and warrants no discussion beyond the 

following comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Defendant pled guilty, 

after many hours of consultation with his assigned Office of the

Public Defender (OPD) attorney. Defendant later asked the OPD to 

assign another attorney to advise him as to whether he should file 

a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant claimed that he 

had done his own legal research, which caused him to question some 

of the advice his attorney had given him. 

The OPD declined to appoint a second attorney to advise 

defendant, but his assigned attorney indicated that if defendant

decided to withdraw his guilty plea, the OPD would assign a 

replacement attorney to file the motion for him. The sentencing 

judge adjourned the sentencing for a month to give defendant more 

time to decide whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. When 
6 A-2378-15T1

defendant had not yet made up his mind at the next scheduled 

hearing, the judge proceeded with the sentencing. 

In State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (2011), the Court held that 

the defendant was entitled to an adjournment in order to have his 

newly-retained attorney represent him in arguing a motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea. Id. at 541-42. Hayes is not on point 

here, because defendant never sought more than a second opinion 

on whether to file such a motion. The OPD is not required to 

replace a defendant's assigned attorney merely because the 

defendant is dissatisfied with that attorney or would prefer a 

different attorney. See State v. Miller, 216 N.J. 40, 62-65 

(2013); State v. Williams, 404 N.J. Super. 147, 170 (App. Div. 

2008), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 440 (2010). Likewise, the OPD is 

not required to appoint an attorney to provide a second opinion

concerning advice given by defendant's assigned OPD counsel. The 

OPD's refusal to assign a second attorney in this case did not 

deprive defendant of his right to counsel. 

We decline to address defendant's claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, insofar as it may be directed at the 

representation provided by his assigned OPD attorney. We affirm, 

without prejudice to his right to file a petition for postconviction relief on that issue. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.

451, 460 (1992). 
7 A-2378-15T1

Affirmed.