SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3934-17T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VIRGIL D. BALDWIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted June 4, 2019 – Decided June 28, 2019

Before Judges Messano and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 09-02-

0398.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lisa Sarnoff 

Gochman, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3934-17T2

Following a joint trial, the jury convicted defendant Virgil D. Baldwin, 

and his co-defendant Robert King, of second-degree robbery, and the judge 

sentenced defendant to an extended twenty-year term of imprisonment subject 

to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. State v. Baldwin, No. A-0562-

13 (App. Div. Dec. 14, 2015) (slip op. at 2). The Supreme Court denied 

defendant's petition for certification. State v. Baldwin, 224 N.J. 527 (2016).

Defendant's pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleged that 

trial counsel provided ineffective assistance (IAC) in various respects. One 

specific claim, echoed in appointed PCR counsel's brief, was that trial counsel 

failed to request a continuance of the "plea cut-off" hearing despite defendant's 

failing mental health. Defendant contended that because of counsel's failure, he 

rejected the State's offer of a more favorable plea bargain and elected to go to 

trial. Defendant requested an evidentiary hearing on the petition. See R. 3:22-

10(b) (entitling petitioner "to an evidentiary hearing only upon the establishment 

of a prima facie case in support of post-conviction relief, a determination by the 

court that there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by 

reference to the existing record, and a determination that an evidentiary hearing 

is necessary to resolve the claims for relief").
3

A-3934-17T2

The PCR judge, Joseph W. Oxley, who was not the trial judge, denied the 

petition without an evidentiary hearing. In a comprehensive written opinion that 

accompanied his order, Judge Oxley considered all of defendant's IAC claims 

and found they were procedurally barred by Rule 3:22-4 (with certain 

exceptions, barring claims that could have been asserted, but were not asserted 

in prior proceedings or appeal). Nevertheless, Judge Oxley proceeded to 

consider the merits of the arguments raised, only one of which we need address.

Specifically, Judge Oxley rejected defendant's claim that trial counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by not requesting an adjournment of the plea cutoff hearing. Judge Oxley recited at length from the trial record, including the 

trial judge's observations of defendant at the time of the hearing, and that judge's 

conclusion after "several competency hearings" that defendant was "malingering 

at all times prior to the trial." Judge Oxley concluded that based upon the trial 

judge's specific findings, had defense counsel requested an adjournment, it

would have been denied.

Before us, defendant contends his IAC claims were not procedurally 

barred, and asserts his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on only one, i.e., 

that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not requesting an 

adjournment of the plea cut-off date because of defendant's mental health status 
4

A-3934-17T2

at the time. Citing only medical testimony in the trial court during prior 

competency hearings and comments during other prior proceedings, and baldly 

asserting that he was "heavily medicated on . . . psychotropic drugs" on the day 

of the plea cutoff, defendant argues he "could not knowingly participate in the 

. . . hearing" and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion. Rule

2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Oxley 

in his ruling on the merits of the claim. We add only the following.

Defendant made no prima facie showing that trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance under the two-pronged standard enunciated in Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by the Court in State v. Fritz, 

105 N.J. 42 (1987). Any claim that defendant was decompensating because, 

after evaluation at Ann Klein Forensic Hospital and being found competent to 

stand trial, he stopped taking his medication while incarcerated at the county 

jail, is a "bare assertion . . . insufficient to support a prima facie case of 

ineffectiveness." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 171 (App. Div.

1999); see also R. 3:22-10(b) ("To establish a prima facie case, defendant must 

demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts 

alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on 
5

A-3934-17T2

the merits."). Moreover, that assertion is inconsistent with defendant's pro se 

claim that he was heavily medicated at the time. 

Affirmed.