SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4857-18

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TAARIQ MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted February 1, 2021 – Decided September 9, 2021

Before Judges Hoffman and Suter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 10-07-0851.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Lee March Grayson, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Laura Sunyak, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4857-18

Defendant Taariq Miller appeals from a May 3, 2019 Law Division order 

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary 

hearing. We affirm. 

I.

On March 26, 2007, defendant and co-defendant Willie Yeager followed 

Naquan Archie into an apartment in Trenton and demanded $1,500 in cash. 

Defendant and Yeager then shot at Archie. Defendant shot at Archie once before 

his gun jammed; his shot hit the ground. Yeager shot Archie five times, killing 

him. 

On July 29, 2010, a Mercer County grand jury indicted defendant, 

alongside Yeager, on the following charges: first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 

2C:11-3(a)(1), (2) (count one); first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-

3(a)(3) (count two); first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (counts three and 

eight); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 

2C:39-4(a) (counts six and ten); and third-degree unlawful possession of a 

weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count seven).

On April 7, 2014, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled

guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1). 

According to the plea form, the State agreed to recommend defendant receive 
3 A-4857-18

539 days of gap time as jail credit and, if he did not, defendant could withdraw 

his plea. The trial court imposed a twenty-two year prison sentence, subject to 

an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period required by the No Early 

Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and dismissed the remaining counts. 

The trial court also denied defendant’s request to apply the 539 days as jail 

credit, and instead applied the time as gap time. Defendant filed a pro se appeal 

of his sentence; we affirmed, and held "defendant received all the jail credits to 

which he was entitled." Defendant then filed for certification concerning his 

sentence, which our Supreme Court denied. State v. Miller, 224 N.J. 246 (2016).

Defendant filed a PCR petition on March 16, 2018, supplemented by his 

PCR counsel's letter-brief and his and multiple potential witnesses' sworn 

certifications. Defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance, asserting 

his trial counsel failed to interview these potential witnesses and failed to seek

withdraw of his guilty plea after the trial court denied his request to apply 539 

days of gap time as jail credit. The PCR court heard oral argument on April 1, 

2019, and denied defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing in a written 

decision, finding that "every alleged deficiency raised by [defendant] in his brief 

and certification fail to show any degree of prejudice or are directly contradicted 

by [his] plea colloquy."
4 A-4857-18

Defendant appeals, arguing:

POINT I

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE 

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING 

HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY 

ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE 

RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL WHO, IN PART, (1) FAILED TO 

WITHDRAW THE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA 

WHEN THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT 

APPLY ALL OF THE JAIL CREDITS THAT THE 

DEFENDANT WAS PROMISED IN HIS PLEA 

AGREEMENT; AND (2) DID NOT CONDUCT AN 

INVESTIGATION OF WITNESSES, INCLUDING 

INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD HAVE REFUTED 

STATE INFORMANTS.

A. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY 

FAILING TO MOVE TO VACATE THE 

DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA WHEN THE 

SENTENCING COURT DENIED THE 

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO APPLY 539 DAYS 

OF GAP TIME AS JAIL CREDIT.

B. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY 

FAILING TO CONDUCT AN APPROPRIATE 

INVESTIGATION NOR DID HE CONTACT 

NUMEROUS WITNESSES, INCLUDING 

INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD HAVE REFUTED 

STATE INFORMANTS.

C. THE PCR COURT ERRED BY NOT 

GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR 

AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
5 A-4857-18

II.

We "will uphold [a] PCR court's findings that are supported by sufficient 

credible evidence in the record." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013). "[W]e 

review under the abuse of discretion standard [a] PCR court's determination to 

proceed without an evidentiary hearing." State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 

401 (App. Div. 2013). When a defendant challenges such a denial, "the question 

before [us] is whether defendant has alleged any facts that, when viewed in the 

light most favorable to him, are sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood 

of success on his PCR claim." State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014). 

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

defendant must demonstrate that: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and 

(2) the deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the 

proceedings. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 

105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland test in New Jersey).

On appeal, we apply a strong presumption that a defendant's trial counsel 

"rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise 

of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. To establish 

a prima facie claim, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of 

succeeding under the Strickland/Fritz test. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 
6 A-4857-18

463 (1992). To demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of succeeding under the 

Strickland/Fritz test, a defendant "must do more than make bald assertions[,] . . . 

[and] must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard 

performance." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999).

Here, defendant contends trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

withdraw defendant's guilty plea after the trial court denied his request to apply 

539 days of gap time as jail credit. The negotiated plea agreement permitted 

withdrawal if the gap time was not classified as jail credits. Defendant also 

contends trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate witnesses, who 

allegedly could have refuted or cast doubt on the State's informants' testimonies. 

Even if trial counsel's performance was deficient, we agree with the PCR 

court’s findings that defendant's petition failed to establish that he was 

prejudiced by trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Defendant offers no 

evidence in his certification or elsewhere in the record to suggest he would have 

wanted a trial if trial counsel interviewed the potential witnesses or would not 

have accepted the guilty plea without the jail credit. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 

U.S. 52, 59 (1985) (holding that a defendant must demonstrate "there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded 

guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."). Defendant also offers no 
7 A-4857-18

evidence to suggest the State might have reasonably altered its plea offer if trial 

counsel interviewed the potential witnesses or withdrew defendant's guilty plea

over the jail credit issue. Specifically, the potential witnesses' certifications give 

defendant no shelter from the State's other potential witnesses who identify him 

at the scene of the crime, physical evidence, and his own plea colloquy. 

If defendant did not accept the plea offer, he faced a trial on murder, 

robbery, and weapons charges, exposing himself to a potential life sentence with 

a period of parole ineligibility of no less than thirty years. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-

3(a)(2). Given the State's offer to significantly reduce defendant's substantial 

sentencing exposure and parole ineligibility, defendant fails to establish that it 

would have been rational to reject the plea offer and that he probably would 

have done so. State v. Maldon, 422 N.J. Super. 475, 486 (App. Div. 2011). 

Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance, and 

therefore an evidentiary hearing was not required. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

For these reasons, we find the PCR court correctly denied defendant's PCR 

petition without an evidentiary hearing. 

Affirmed.