SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0737-18

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH AMOOP,

a/k/a JOESPH AMOOP, 

JOSEPH MICHAEL ANOOP, 

and JOSEPH M. ANOOP,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Submitted June 9, 2021 – Decided June 30, 2021

Before Judges Fuentes and Whipple.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 08-06-1948.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Andrew P. Slowinski, Designated Counsel, 

on the briefs).

Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Kevin J. Hein, Special Deputy 

Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-0737-18

PER CURIAM

Defendant Joseph Amoop appeals the June 19, 2018 denial of his petition 

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

convicted of first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3), and other 

offenses1 for an October 2013 murder following a botched drug deal in Camden.

We affirm. 

At trial, the State's case in chief relied exclusively on the testimony of 

Desmond McMoore, a co-defendant in this case, who testified defendant shot 

the victim multiple times. According to McMoore, after the victim died, 

defendant robbed the victim and two other bystanders waiting in line to buy 

drugs. Defendant was sentenced on January 10, 2014, to life in prison subject 

to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, to which he filed a direct 

1 After a jury trial, defendant was also found guilty of first-degree robbery, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; first-degree conspiracy to commit murder or robbery, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). On January 10, 2014, defendant was sentenced to life in 

prison for felony murder, to run consecutive to his existing sentence in 

Pennsylvania, but concurrent to a five-year sentence for unlawful possession of 

a handgun under count six. The robbery, conspiracy, and unlawful purpose 

counts merged into the felony murder count.
3 A-0737-18

appeal. On July 7, 2016, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State 

v. Amoop, No. A-3837-13 (App. Div. July 7, 2016) (slip op. at 1).

In July 2017, defendant filed a timely pro se petition for PCR. In that 

petition, defendant asserted multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of 

counsel for various reasons, prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered 

evidence. On June 19, 2018, the PCR court rejected all of defendant's claims 

and denied his petition for PCR.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal in October 2018, contending, among 

other things, that neither his PCR counsel nor the PCR court addressed his 

assertion about newly discovered evidence from a witness, Jose Lopez. In a 

two-page handwritten document, dated November 20, 2013, Lopez attested that 

McMoore confessed to killing the victim. In January 2020, we ordered a limited 

remand to allow the PCR court to address defendant's newly discovered 

evidence claim.

In July 2020, defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to investigate the newly discovered evidence. The PCR court rejected 

his claim because the Lopez document was not sufficiently authenticated; it 

failed to comply with the New Jersey Court Rules; and no one could attest to its 

veracity. Additionally, the PCR court also denied defendant's petition because 
4 A-0737-18

he failed to make a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel under 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). This appeal followed.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT I: THE PCR COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD 

THAT DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED 

BASED ON TRIAL AND PCR COUNSEL'S 

INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, INCLUDING A 

FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE 

INVESTIGATION. ([U.S. Const., amend. IV, amend. 

VI; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 10])

(a) Defendant Is Entitled to Relief Under 

Controlling Legal Principles Governing 

Petitions for [PCR] Pursuant to R[ule]

3:22-2 et seq.

(b) Trial and PCR Counsel's Failure to 

Investigate Renders Their Representation 

of Defendant Ineffective as a Matter of 

Law Requiring a Remand for a New PCR 

Proceeding.

(c) The PCR Court Erred by Failing to 

Address the Claims Raised by the Affidavit 

of Jose Lopez. 

POINT II: THE PCR COURT ERRED IN 

REJECTING DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HIS 

ATTORNEY PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE AT TRIAL IN COMMENTING ON A 

NON-EXISTENT EYEWITNESS AND IN FAILING 

TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER 

CLOSING STATEMENT.
5 A-0737-18

POINT III: THE PCR COURT ERRED IN 

REJECTING DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HIS 

ATTORNEY FAILED TO PRESENT AN ALIBI 

WITNESSS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE AT 

TRIAL.

POINT IV: THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING.

We defer to the PCR court's factual findings on a PCR petition when 

supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence. State v. Harris, 181 

N.J. 391, 415 (2004). The PCR court's legal conclusions, however, receive no 

deference, and we review those determinations de novo. Ibid. (citing Toll Bros., 

Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 549 (2002)). Reviewing this appeal 

under those standards, we discern no reason to disturb the court's factual 

findings and legal conclusions.

A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is governed by the standard 

set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland. 466 U.S. at 

687. New Jersey subsequently adopted the standard enumerated in Strickland. 

State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). To meet the standard under 

Strickland/Fritz, the defendant must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) that defense 

counsel's performance was deficient, and he or she made errors that were so 

egregious that counsel was not functioning effectively as guaranteed by the 
6 A-0737-18

Sixth Amendment; and (2) "that the deficient performance prejudiced the 

defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52. Unless the 

defendant can satisfy both prongs, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel 

is fruitless. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

Under the first prong, there is a strong presumption that counsel's 

assistance was adequate, and he or she "made all significant decisions in the 

exercise of reasonable professional judgement." Id. at 690. Therefore, the court 

must determine whether counsel's conduct, whether it be by act or omission, was 

"outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." Ibid. In other 

words, ineffective assistance of counsel requires the showing "that counsel made 

errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the 

defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 687. 

Under the second prong, Strickland requires that the defendant prove that 

he was actually prejudiced by defense counsel's deficient performance. Ibid.; 

Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52. This prong is satisfied when the defendant can show that 

there exists a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 

U.S. at 694. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome." Ibid. Therefore, to satisfy the second prong of the 
7 A-0737-18

Strickland standard, the defendant must affirmatively prove sufficient prejudice. 

Ibid. 

Finally, an evidentiary hearing to resolve a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel should not be granted unless the defendant demonstrates a reasonable 

likelihood of prevailing under the Strickland/Fritz standard. State v. Preciose, 

129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). Thus, a reviewing court must conclude that 

defendant has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that his 

counsel's performance was deficient because counsel did not act as a reasonably 

competent attorney and that he was prejudiced at trial by that deficient conduct. 

Id. at 463; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52.

Here, defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective due to a 

failure to investigate the facts set forth in the document that Jose Lopez allegedly 

wrote. However, defendant did not show that his counsel was ineffective under 

prong one of the Strickland standard because he has not supported the veracity 

of the Lopez document and has merely made vague, conclusory, and speculative 

allegations. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997); see also State v. 

Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (1999) (reasoning that defendant "must do 

more than make bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel.").
8 A-0737-18

Even if defendant had demonstrated prong one, he did not establish the 

second prong of the Strickland/Fritz standard. Under prong two, the defendant 

must show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Strickland, 466 

U.S. at 694.

Here, the jury acquitted defendant of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-

3(a)(1) or (2). However, the jury convicted him of first-degree felony murder,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3). Because the jury found that defendant was guilty of 

felony murder, if McMoore, rather than defendant, had murdered the victim, 

defendant would still be guilty of felony murder. Defendant's additional 

arguments are accordingly without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.