SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3233-18

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN WESLEY POTEAT,

a/k/a/ JOHN W. POTEAT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted May 19, 2021 – Decided June 2, 2021

Before Judges Whipple and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Cape May County, Indictment No. 96-10-

0575.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (John Douard, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Jeffrey H. Sutherland, Cape May County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Brett Yore, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3233-18

Following a jury trial in 1997, defendant John Wesley Poteat was 

convicted of multiple offenses charged in a Cape May indictment, including 

murder, felony murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and 

weapons offenses for his part in the stabbing death of a tavern patron and 

robbery of the bartender. Defendant's sentence included two life sentences. 

We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. State v. Poteat, No. 

A-7163-96 (App. Div. May 21, 1999). The Supreme Court denied certification.

163 N.J. 76 (2000). In May 2006, the trial court denied defendant's initial 

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In March 2014, defendant filed a 

second PCR petition, which was denied as untimely. We affirmed. State v. 

Poteat, No. A-4219-13 (App. Div. June 15, 2015). Thereafter defendant's pro 

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed as untimely. Poteat v. Att'y

Gen. of N.J., No. 16-2351 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2017). 

In July 2018, defendant moved pro se for a new trial on the grounds of 

newly discovered evidence. Counsel was assigned but did not supplement 

defendant's handwritten submission. Defendant raised the following points 

before the Law Division:

I. The State withheld evidence of co[-]defendant's 

mental health issues.
3 A-3233-18

II. Defendant's statement at the police station should 

have been inadmissible because he was intoxicated; he 

was denied food and water and coerced into making the 

statement.

III. Defendant's initial arrest was invalid and his 

subsequent confession should be inadmissible because 

he was arrested on a non-existent warrant.

IV. DNA evidence did not identify defendant as a 

source of the DNA.

V. Co-[d]efendant has recanted any implication of 

defendant in the crimes for which he was convicted.

VI. Defendant was denied effective assistance of 

counsel because trial counsel failed to file necessary 

motions and failed to present evidence of defendant's 

mental state.

Following argument on July 31, 2018, Judge Michael J. Donohue reserved 

decision. On August 9, 2018, the judge issued a cogent written opinion, denying 

defendant's motion. The judge squarely rejected defendant's contentions in view 

of the governing law, including the well-established test reiterated by our 

Supreme Court in State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981). As the judge aptly 

recognized: "Defendant has pursued the full panoply of post-conviction 

litigation . . . ." And after fully considering defendant's present claims in view 

of his prior post-conviction filings, the judge concluded each claim could not be 
4 A-3233-18

characterized as newly discovered evidence. The same day, the judge issued a 

memorializing order. 

On appeal, defendant maintains a new trial is warranted for the same 

reasons raised before Judge Donohue. More particularly, defendant raises the 

following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE

. . . CARTER STANDARD IN DENYING THE 

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. 

A. Validity Of The Arrest Warrant.

B. [Defendant]'s Intoxication During The Interrogation 

Resulted In A Coerced Confession.

C. Co-Defendant Recanted His Statement Implicating 

[Defendant] In The Crimes Of Which [He] Was 

Convicted.

POINT II

AS IN CARTER, THERE IS SUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE OF A BRADY[1] VIOLATION TO 

WARRANT A REMAND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING TO DETERMINE IF THE PROSECUTOR 

IN 1996 FAILED TO PROVIDE DNA EVIDENCE. 

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
5 A-3233-18

POINT III

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE TRIAL 

COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE NECESSARY 

MOTIONS. U.S. CONST. AMENDS V, VI and XIV;

N.J. CONST. ART. I, [¶¶] 1, 9, AND 10. 

We have considered defendant's arguments in view of the applicable law 

and the record, and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in 

a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons 

articulated by Judge Donohue in his well-reasoned decision, which was 

supported by the record and is entitled to our deference. See State v. Russo, 333 

N.J. Super. 119, 137 (App. Div. 2000) (recognizing "a motion for a new trial is 

addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the exercise of that 

discretion will not be interfered with on appeal unless a clear abuse has been 

shown"). 

Affirmed.