SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2265-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CURTIS R. JONES, a/k/a

CURTIS A. JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted February 11, 2019 – Decided 

Before Judges Fasciale and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 11-09-

1457.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Kisha M. S. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Nancy A. Hulett, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 25, 2019
2

A-2265-17T1

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a December 11, 2017 order denying his petition 

for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, 

defendant maintains that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Judge 

Joseph Paone, who had tried the case, entered the order and rendered a thorough 

oral decision. On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] WITHOUT 

AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF HIS 

CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DENIED THE 

RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL.

A. [Intentionally omitted.]

B. Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal 

Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Honor 

Defendant's Desire To Testify At Trial.

C. Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal 

Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Expose, 

Through Cross-Examination, The Bias And Interest 

R[.K.][1] Had In Testifying Against Defendant.

D. Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal 

Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Voir Dire 

All Jurors And Promptly Move For A Mistrial When It 

 

1

 We use initials to protect the privacy of the witness.
3

A-2265-17T1

Was Discovered That Juror Number Three Had 

Contacted And Befriended A Court Officer On 

Facebook.

E. Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal 

Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Object To 

The Restitution Amount And His Failure To Request A 

Hearing To Determine Petitioner's Ability To Pay.

F. Defendant Is Entitled To A Remand To The Trial 

Court To Afford Him An Evidentiary Hearing To 

Determine The Merits Of His Contention That He Was

Denied The Effective Assistance Of Trial Counsel.

We have carefully considered defendant's arguments, in light of the 

applicable law, 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 set 

forth by Judge Paone in his well-reasoned oral decision, and add the following 

brief remarks.

A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he "has 

presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 

89, 158 (1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 

451, 462 (1992)), meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable 

likelihood that his . . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. For a 

defendant to obtain relief based on ineffective assistance grounds, he is obliged 

to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's performance was 
4

A-2265-17T1

deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a fair trial. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 

58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey) (Strickland/Fritz

test).

In sum, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his 

PCR claim will ultimately succeed on the merits, and failed to satisfy either 

prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. Because there was no prima facie showing of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to 

resolve defendant's PCR claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

Affirmed.