SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0650-22 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

YOHER JIMENEZ, a/k/a 

YOHER A. CUBILLOS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________

Submitted February 6, 2024 – Decided February 13, 2024 

Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 11-07-1355.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on

the brief). 

Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-0650-22

 Defendant Yoher Jimenez appeals from a Law Division order denying his 

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We 

affirm. 

I.

 We incorporate herein the procedural history and facts set forth in our 

decision affirming defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal in State 

v. Jimenez, No. A-5560-16 (App. Div. Jun. 17, 2020), certif. denied, 244 N.J. 

303 (2020). The following facts are pertinent to the present appeal. 

 The victim in this case was a thirteen-month-old baby girl. Id. at 3. 

Defendant was in a relationship with the baby's mother, who left the child in 

defendant's care on April 4, 2010. Defendant claimed at trial that he placed the 

child in a bathtub full of water while he retrieved some boxes from his car. Ibid. 

When he returned, he found the baby face down in the tub. Ibid. He removed 

her from the tub, dried and dressed her, and took her to the superintendent of the 

apartment building for help. Ibid. EMTs arrived and transported the baby to 

the hospital, where she remained on life support for four days before dying. Ibid. 

Defendant alleged that the child's death was accidental and that she "died from 

her submersion in the bathtub water." Ibid. 
3 A-0650-22

 The State's trial evidence told a different story. The medical examiner 

performed an autopsy that revealed the child had fifteen rib fractures, two of 

which were fresh. Ibid. The medical examiner brought in an expert 

neuropathologist to review the case after the medical examiners discovered that 

the child's brain was swollen and that "[t]here was an odd cluster of blood 

vessels on the top surface of [her] skull[.]" Id. at 3-4.

 The neuropathologist found that the child's brain swelling "indicat[ed] a 

deprivation of oxygen or blood supply." Id. at 4. The expert found signs of 

prior brain trauma, which was not related to the child's death. Id. at 4-5. When 

he examined the child's spinal cord, the expert found that it had been crushed. 

Id. at 5-6. Once that crush injury occurred, the baby was no longer able to 

breathe. Id. at 6. Thus, the baby's "submersion in water had no relevance 

whatsoever to [the child's] death once the crush injury to the spinal cord 

occurred[.]" Ibid. 

The neuropathologist opined that 

the spinal cord injury was unquestionably the actual 

cause of death. He deduced a powerful force must have 

been inflicted such that [the child's] head was suddenly 

moved ('hyper-flexed') far backward or far forward in a 

way that caused the bones of her spine to move against 

one another. Such a high cervical spinal cord injury is 

almost always fatal. 
4 A-0650-22

[Id. at 6-7.] 

The medical examiner "issued a death certificate listing the cause of death as 

acute cervical spinal cord injury and the manner of death as homicide." Id. at 7.

 In a statement to police, defendant claimed that he was "playing" with the 

child in the bathtub. He admitted he held the baby by her feet and repeatedly 

forced her head under the water. The child then hit her head on either the faucet 

or the tub bottom. Defendant demonstrated his actions using a doll the police 

provided him. After "playing" with the infant in this fashion, defendant stated 

the baby looked like "she was about to go to sleep." 

 Defendant claimed he took the child to the bedroom, and he demonstrated 

for the police how he threw her body onto the mattress. He drove the heel of his 

hand "real hard" into the child's stomach. Defendant told the police that when 

the child turned purple, he went for help. 

During the interview, defendant admitted that he had previously hit the 

child. He also gave 

varying accounts of how [the child] came to be 

critically unresponsive while in his sole care to: the 

building superintendent, the EMTs and police who 

responded to a 911 call, a detective at the hospital at 

which [the child] was treated, detectives during 

defendant's statement taken at the Prosecutor's Office, 

[the child's] mother, and at trial. 
5 A-0650-22

[Id. at 30.] 

 On direct appeal, defendant raised the same ineffective assistance of 

counsel argument that he presents in the matter at hand. He asserted his trial 

attorney was ineffective because he did not "subpoena Dr. Zhongxue Hua, a 

forensic pathologist, whose trial testimony would have buttressed defendant's 

defense that [the child] drowned while he left her alone in the bathtub, 

countering the State's evidence as to her cause of death." Id. at 7-8. Finding 

that this issue would be better addressed through a petition for PCR, we declined 

to consider defendant's ineffectiveness of counsel argument in our decision on 

direct appeal. Id. at 15.

 However, we set forth the facts underlying defendant's claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in our opinion. Id. at 8-15. The parties are fully familiar 

with these facts and, therefore, we need only briefly summarize them here. 

 Defendant's prior attorney retained Hua sometime in 2013. Id. at 8. 

However, in 2016, the attorney advised the court that he had decided not to use 

Hua as an expert. Id. at 9. A few months later, defendant hired a new attorney 

for the trial. 
6 A-0650-22

 Just before the trial began in January 2017, defendant's trial attorney listed 

Hua on his witness list. Ibid. However, the attorney did not provide Hua's report 

to the State until jury selection had begun. Id. at 10. Hua supplied a 

summary report, which the trial court later 

characterized as a net opinion[.] [The summary report] 

synopsized the doctor's review:

1. [The baby's] cause of death was due to her 

drowning on April 4, 2010. 

2. Her eventual brain death with global brain and 

spinal hypoxic ischemia changes on [April 8, 

2010] was due to her prolonged cardiopulmonary 

arrest on [April 4, 2010]. 

3. The autopsy described discoloration of outer 

table of left parietal skull was due to her medical

treatment and/or resuscitation. 

4. [The baby's] rib fractures and healed subdural 

membrane were not related to . . . her 

cardiopulmonary . . . arrest on [April 4, 2010] and

her subsequent death. 

5. [The baby] had no evidence of fatal trauma on her 

head and neck on [April 4, 2010]. 

[Id. at 10-11.] 

 However, defendant's trial counsel never called Hua as a witness at the 

trial. The attorney advised that there was a dispute between Hua and the Office 

of the Public Defender over the doctor's fee. Id. at 12. In addition, the attorney 
7 A-0650-22

stated that Hua had scheduling issues which prevented him from testifying. Id. 

at 12-13. And, as already mentioned, the trial court determined that Hua's report 

was an inadmissible net opinion. Id. at 10. 

 The jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder, second-degree 

endangering the welfare of a child, and third-degree hindering apprehension or 

prosecution. Id. at 1. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term 

of life in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Ibid. 

We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 2.

II. 

 Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR. Among other things, defendant 

again argued that his trial attorney was ineffective because he failed to call Hua 

as a witness at trial. Defendant argued that his attorney's failure to subpoena 

Hua prevented him from presenting a complete defense. 

 Following oral argument, the PCR judge rendered a thorough written 

decision, concluding that defendant did not satisfy the two-prong test of 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which requires a showing 

that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient 

performance, the result would have been different. 
8 A-0650-22

The PCR judge identified the issue to be decided as "whether Dr. Hua's 

testimony was such that, in its absence, defendant was unable to present a 

defense and the jury received only a partial presentation of facts." In answering 

this question in the negative, the PCR judge agreed with the trial court that Hua's 

summary report was "an inadmissible net opinion." Therefore, the judge found 

that the trial court would not have permitted Hua to testify even if defendant's 

trial attorney had subpoenaed him to do so.1

1

 This ruling was clearly correct. Expert opinions must "be grounded in 'facts 

or data derived from[:] (1) the expert's personal observations, or (2) evidence 

admitted at the trial, or (3) data relied upon by the expert which is not necessarily 

admissible in evidence but which is the type of data normally relied upon by 

experts.'" Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 53 (2015) (quoting Polzo v. Cty. of 

Essex (Polzo I), 196 N.J. 569, 583 (2008)). "The net opinion rule is a 'corollary 

of [N.J.R.E. 703] . . . which forbids the admission into evidence of an expert's 

conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data.'" Id. at 53-

54 (alteration in original) (quoting Polzo I, 196 N.J. at 583). 

 

Therefore, an expert is required to "'give the why and wherefore' that 

supports the opinion, 'rather than a mere conclusion.'" Id. at 54 (quoting 

Borough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale, L.L.C., 216 N.J. 115, 144 (2013)). 

The net opinion rule directs that experts "be able to identify the factual bases for 

their conclusions, explain their methodology, and demonstrate that both the 

factual bases and the methodology are reliable." Id. at 55 (quoting Landrigan v. 

Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 417 (1992)). In short, the net opinion rule is "a 

prohibition against speculative testimony." Harte v. Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457, 

465 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Grzanka v. Pfeifer, 301 N.J. Super. 563, 580 

(App. Div. 1997)).
9 A-0650-22

Just as importantly, the PCR judge found that even if Hua's net opinion 

had been permitted in evidence, it would not have changed the result of the trial. 

This is so because Hua's summary conclusions did not contradict the conclusions 

of the State's experts. 

For example, Hua opined that the baby's death was due to drowning. 

However, Hua did not respond or address the State's neuropathologist's finding 

that the crushed spinal cord was the actual cause of death. The PCR judge stated, 

"More strikingly, however, a finding that [the baby] died of drowning (rather 

than a crush injury) does little to rebut the State's case-in-chief that the defendant 

brutally beat and murdered" the baby. The judge further explained: 

Whether [the child] died of drowning or injury to her 

spinal cord has little bearing on this underlying 

argument. While defendant may have tried to utilize 

this alternate cause of death as a means to establish [the 

baby's] accidental death (contrary to murder), this court 

cannot readily find that such a defense would have been 

successful before the jury, which was presented with 

(1) defendant's confession to violently beating [the 

infant] in the bathtub, even after she went limp, (2) 

evidence of [the baby's] freshly broken limbs and crush 

injury to her spinal cord, (3) evidence of [the baby's] 

injuries indicating abuse, (4) defendant's admission of 

Hua's summary report failed to satisfy the requirements for admission. He 

did not explain "the factual bases for [his] conclusions, explain [his] 

methodology, [or] demonstrate that both the factual bases and the methodology 

are reliable." Townsend, 221 N.J. at 55. 
10 A-0650-22

inflicting prior harm to [the child], (5) defendant's 

inconsistent explanation of the events surrounding [the 

infant's] death, and (6) defendant's attempt to cover-up 

his actions by drying and dressing [the child] before 

seeking aid.[2]

 The PCR judge also rejected defendant's argument that his trial attorney 

was ineffective because he did not call another expert as a witness when Hua 

was unavailable. The judge noted that even now, "defendant has failed to 

establish that there was or is an expert who would refute the opinion of the 

State's expert[.]" Absent such evidence, defendant was not able to establish the 

second prong of the Strickland test. The judge stated: 

[T]his court declines to find that [defense counsel] was 

ineffective for failing to secure Dr. Hua's appearance 

and testimony. [Defense counsel] acted reasonably in 

determining, as previous counsel had, not to call Dr. 

Hua. And, even if [defense counsel] had acted 

unreasonably, defendant's case was not prejudiced, and 

the outcome was not affected, by Dr. Hua's failure to 

appear. 

III. 

 On appeal, defendant presents the following contentions: 

POINT ONE 

2

 The PCR judge also explained how none of Hua's four other summary 

conclusions contradicted those provided by the State's expert neuropathologist 

and by the medical examiner. 
11 A-0650-22

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RETAIN AND 

PRODUCE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, DR. 

ZHONGXUE HUA, AS A DEFENSE WITNESS AT 

TRIAL DENIED THE DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO 

PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE, AND 

CONSTITUTED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM FOR 

[PCR]. 

A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES 

REGARDING CLAIMS FOR INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY 

HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR [PCR]. 

B. TRIAL COUNSEL'S NEGLECT TO ENSURE 

THE PRESENCE OF DR. HUA AT TRIAL, 

AND HIS MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT 

DR. HUA'S AVAILABILITY AS 

DEFENDANT'S FORENSIC PATHOLOGY 

EXPERT AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

 When petitioning for PCR, the defendant must establish, by a 

preponderance of the credible evidence, that he is entitled to the requested relief. 

State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 541 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 

(1992). To sustain that burden, the defendant must allege and articulate specific 

facts that "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its decision." 

State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579 (1992). 

 The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an 

evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions 

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 
12 A-0650-22

N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). Rather, trial courts should grant 

evidentiary hearings and make a determination on the merits only if the 

defendant has presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance, material 

issues of disputed facts lie outside the record, and resolution of the issues 

necessitates a hearing. R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013). 

We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an evidentiary 

hearing for abuse of discretion. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462. 

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

defendant is obliged to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's 

performance was deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a 

fair trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). 

There is a strong presumption that counsel "rendered adequate assistance and 

made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional 

judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Further, because prejudice is not 

presumed, Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52, the defendant must demonstrate "how specific 

errors of counsel undermined the reliability" of the proceeding. United States 

v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.26 (1984). 

Where, as here, the defendant asserts that his attorney failed to call a 

witness who would have exculpated him, he must assert the facts that would 
13 A-0650-22

have been revealed, "supported by affidavits or certifications based upon the 

personal knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification." State 

v. Petrozelli, 351 N.J. Super. 14, 23 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting Cummings, 321 

N.J. Super. at 170). When a defendant claims that trial counsel inadequately 

investigated his case, he must also supply certifications supporting his claim. 

State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013). In addition, deciding which witnesses 

to call to the stand is "an art," and we must be "highly deferential" to such 

choices. State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 321 (2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. 

at 689). 

 Having considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the 

applicable law, we affirm the denial of defendant's PCR petition substantially 

for the reasons detailed at length in the PCR judge's lengthy written opinion. 

We discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's consideration of the issues, or 

in his decision to deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We are 

satisfied that the trial attorney's performance was not deficient, and defendant 

provided nothing more than bald assertions to the contrary. 

 Affirmed.