SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3939-15T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOEL S. HESTER, a/k/a

JOEWELL A. HESTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted December 20, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 11-04-0652.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Steven E. Braun, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Camila Garces, Special 

Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor; 

of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 27, 2019
2

A-3939-15T3

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

Defendant Joel Hester was tried before a jury and convicted of murder, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), second degree unlawful possession of a handgun, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), and second degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful 

purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). On December 17, 2012, the trial court merged 

the murder conviction with the second degree handgun conviction and sentenced 

defendant to a term of forty years, with thirty years of parole ineligibility. The 

court also sentenced defendant to a concurrent ten-year term with five years of 

parole ineligibility on the conviction for second degree unlawful possession of

a handgun.

We affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal, State v. Joel Hester, 

No. A-3066-12 (App. Div. October 3, 2014), and the Supreme Court denied his 

petition for certification. See State v. Hester, 221 N.J. 219 (2015). In lieu of 

restating the evidence presented by the State at trial, we incorporate by reference 

the facts we described in our unpublished opinion affirming defendant's 

conviction. Hester, slip op. at 2-5. 
3

A-3939-15T3

On March 23, 2015, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction 

relief (PCR), arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The PCR judge1

appointed an attorney to represent defendant. PCR counsel thereafter amended 

defendant's petition and submitted a brief in which he argued defendant's trial 

attorney: (1) failed to call an alleged alibi witness; (2) failed to present a traffic 

video that would have allegedly corroborated defendant's alibi defense; (3) 

failed to request an identification charge that tracked the Supreme Court's 

holding in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011); and (4) failed to introduce 

into evidence a photograph of a man known as "Dizzle," who allegedly 

resembles defendant.

After considering the arguments of counsel on December 22, 2015, the 

PCR judge found sufficient grounds to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The 

judge conducted the evidentiary hearing on February 22, 2016. PCR counsel 

called four witnesses: defendant's trial counsel; Cysa Williams, an alleged alibi 

witness; Francis J. Reilly, an investigator employed by the Public Defender's 

Office; and defendant. The judge also viewed a traffic video that defendant

claimed showed he was present in a different location at the time of the murder.

 

1

 The judge assigned to adjudicate the PCR petition was not the same judge who 

presided over the trial.
4

A-3939-15T3

On April 1, 2016, the PCR judge denied defendant's petition. In a 

memorandum of opinion, the judge found defendant did not satisfy the twoprong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In this appeal, defendant raises the 

following arguments.

POINT I

TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO REQUEST THAT THE 

COURT PROVIDE A JURY INSTRUCTION BASED 

UPON STATE V. HENDERSON, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) 

REGARDING THE INDENTIFICATION OF 

DEFENDANT BY THE VARIOUS WITNESSES 

WHO TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.

POINT II

TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

FOR NOT INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE THE 

PHOTOGRAPHS OF DEFENDANT AND "DIZZLE" 

TO DEMONSTRATE THIRD-PARTY GUILT.

POINT III

THE PCR COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE 

PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF UPON 

CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

REGARDING CYSA WILLIAMS AND BECAUSE 

OF THE FAILURE TO PRESENT THE VIDEOTAPE 

TO THE JURY.
5

A-3939-15T3

Defendant also filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the 

following arguments:

POINT I

AT THE PCR EVIDENTIARY HEARING THE 

DEFENDANT DID PRESENTED [SIC] A PRIMA 

FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL WARRANTING POST-CONVICTION 

RELIEF.

POINT II

TRIAL COUNSEL ABANDON ITS DUTY OF 

LOYALTY AND RENDER DEFENDANT 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN 

COUNSEL DISCREDIT DEFENDANT ALIBI 

WITNESS BASED ON THE 9:00 TO 9:30 TRAFFIC 

STOP THEORY. [SIC]

POINT III

THE PCR COURT OVERLOOKED DEFENDANT 

BROTHER MASSARAH DIRECT TESTIMONY 

WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS NEVER IN 

THE PRESENT OF HIS BROTHER JOEL WHEN 

JOEL WAS COMMUNICATING WITH MS. 

WILLIAMS AND HER FRIEND AMANDA. [SIC]

These arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only the following brief comments. We 

acknowledge that the PCR judge did not address defendant's argument regarding 

trial counsel's failure to request a jury instruction based on Henderson. 
6

A-3939-15T3

However, this omission by the judge is legally inconsequential. Defendant's 

trial began on July 10, 2012. The record shows defense counsel requested a 

Henderson jury instruction at the charge conference held on July 19, 2012, 

pursuant to Rule 1:8-7(b). However, the Henderson jury charge did not become 

effective until September 4, 2012. Henderson, 208 N.J. at 302.

2

 With respect 

to Argument Point II, although the actual photograph was not admitted into 

evidence, trial counsel showed "Dizzle's" photograph to witnesses who testified 

at trial in support of defendant's third-party defense strategy. Only one witness 

recognized Dizzle, but denied he had any involvement in the victim's demise. 

The remaining arguments were addressed and properly rejected by the PCR 

judge.

Affirmed.

 

2

 See also Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Identification: Out-of-Court 

Identification Only" (effective Sept. 4, 2012).

https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/criminalcharges/idinout.pdf