RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3297-21 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

ALTURIK FRANCIS, a/k/a 

ALTURIC FRANCIS, ALTURIC 

MARTIN, ALTERICK A. FRANCIS, 

ALTURIK MARTIN, and ALTRIK 

FRANCIS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________

Submitted January 17, 2024 – Decided February 20, 2024 

Before Judges Whipple and Paganelli. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Indictment No. 05-06-0707. 

Alturik Francis, appellant pro se. 

William A. Daniel, Union County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Meredith L. Balo, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3297-21

Defendant, Alturik Francis, appeals from a July 1, 2021 order denying his 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. Since we conclude he was denied his right 

to have oral argument on the motion we vacate and remand. 

 The facts relating to defendant's convictions are fully recounted in our

prior opinions on defendant's direct appeal, State v. Francis, No. A-1741-09

(App. Div. Aug. 7, 2012) (slip op. at 1), and on defendant's first petition for 

post-conviction relief (PCR), State v. Francis, No. A-2825-15 (App. Div. Dec. 

12, 2017) (slip op. at 1). Here, we recite only the facts that are necessary to 

provide context for our opinion. Defendant was convicted of breaking into 

Majoly Collins's apartment, robbing her, raping her at knife point, stabbing her 

to death, smothering to death her two young children, and attempting to stab to 

death a fourth victim. Francis, slip op. at 1 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2012). After 

merger, defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life in prison, a 

twenty-year consecutive term, and a concurrent term of twenty years. Ibid. 

In defendant's direct appeal, he raised several issues including his 

sentence being improper and excessive. Id. at 3. In our opinion, we concluded 

there was no abuse of the judge's discretion in imposing the sentence and no 

merit in defendant's argument. Id. at 38. 
3 A-3297-21

After we affirmed the denial of defendant's petition for PCR, without an 

evidentiary hearing, Francis, slip op. at 6 (App. Div. Dec. 12, 2017), he filed a 

pro se motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence. In a fourteen-page written 

decision the judge denied defendant's motion. In reciting the procedural history, 

the judge indicated "[t]he parties . . . consented to the motion being addressed 

on the papers." 

However, it is undisputed that oral argument was scheduled by the judge's 

chambers and defendant's "[c]ourt appointed attorney informed him that he 

would have the opportunity to advance his argument via the [Z]oom hearing." 

There was no consent to have the motion decided on the papers. Defendant 

argues his rights were violated because he was denied oral argument on the 

motion. 

The State contends defendant's rights were not denied, despite no 

opportunity for oral argument, because the motion judge had discretion whether 

to grant oral argument, citing State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382, 387 (App. 

Div. 2001). The State argues there was no abuse of discretion because: (1) 

"defendant's argument was wholly without merit, and oral argument was not 

necessary for the court to make its ruling"; and (2) "the court clearly put its 

reasons for denying defendant's motion on the record . . . ."
4 A-3297-21

We are not convinced by the State's argument. The merits of defendant's 

argument and whether substantively the judge addressed the merits is of no 

moment. "Oral advocacy is a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system 

and should be encouraged, preserved, and protected." State v. Parker, 459 N.J. 

Super. 26, 31 (App. Div. 2019). If a "judge . . . reach[es] the determination that 

the arguments presented in the papers do not warrant oral argument, the judge 

should provide a statement of reasons that is tailored to the particular 

application, stating why the judge consider[ed] oral argument unnecessary." 

State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 282 (2012). That was not done here. Therefore, 

we are compelled to vacate the order and remand the motion for further 

consideration. 

Although the judge here issued a thoughtful decision, "[i]n an abundance 

of caution, we direct that th[e motion] be remanded to a different judge . . . to 

avoid the appearance of bias or prejudice based upon the judge's prior 

involvement with the matter . . . ." Entress v. Entress, 376 N.J. Super. 125, 133 

(App. Div. 2005); see also Graziano v. Grant, 326 N.J. Super. 328, 349 (App. 

Div. 1999) (the power to remand to a different judge "may be exercised when 

there is a concern that the trial judge has a potential commitment to his or her 

prior findings."); Luedtke v. Shobert, 342 N.J. Super. 202, 219 (App. Div. 2001) 
5 A-3297-21

("recogniz[ing] the time and effort the court put into the case" but expressing 

concern that judge would be in an "untenable position" on remand). Here, we 

express no opinion about the merits of the arguments. 

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.