SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3598-15T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BIENVENIDO CASILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

Submitted October 18, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 

98-10-0052.

Bienvenido Casilla, appellant pro se.

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Emily R. Anderson, 

Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a March 18, 2016 order denying without 

an evidentiary hearing his third petition for post-conviction 

relief (PCR). We affirm.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 16, 2017
2 A-3598-15T4

The facts underlying defendant's conviction of purposeful or 

knowing murder, kidnapping, and other offenses are detailed in our 

opinion disposing of defendant's direct appeal and we need not 

recount them. State v. Casilla, 362 N.J. Super. 554, 557-60 (App. 

Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 251 (2003). We affirmed 

defendant's convictions and sentences for murder and hindering 

apprehension; vacated his conviction for first-degree kidnapping 

and remanded for re-sentencing on that count as a second-degree 

offense; and reversed his convictions for racketeering and theft 

by extortion. Id. at 571. 

The State did not retry defendant on the racketeering and 

attempted theft by extortion counts. The trial court re-sentenced 

defendant on the second-degree kidnapping offense to a consecutive 

ten-year prison term subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On a sentencing calendar, Rule 2:9-11, we

affirmed the consecutive sentences but remanded to the trial court 

to consider the applicability of NERA and the constitutional issues 

discussed in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 

159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). State v. Casilla, No. A-3709-03 (App. 

Div. Sept. 30, 2004). Following remand, the trial court imposed 

the identical sentence.

Defendant subsequently filed two PCR petitions. In each 

instance, the trial court denied the petition and the implementing 
3 A-3598-15T4

order was affirmed on appeal. State v. Casilla, No. A-2994-05 

(App. Div. June 11, 2007), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 482 (2007); 

State v. Casilla, No. A-4838-10 (App. Div. Nov. 5, 2012), certif. 

denied, 214 N.J. 119 (2013). 

Defendant also filed a petition for habeas corpus. The United 

States District Court dismissed the petition and denied 

defendant's certificate of appealability because defendant had not 

made "'a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right' under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)." Casilla v. Ricci, No. 08-

3546 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2009) (slip op. at 37). The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied defendant's 

application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed 

defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The United States 

Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. 

Casilla v. Ricci, 562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 799, 178 L. Ed. 2d 535 

(2010).

We rejected the following contentions defendant raised on 

direct appeal:

(1) his right to due process was violated when 

the court failed to submit the element of 

jurisdiction to the jury; (2) the court 

committed reversible error on the murder count 

when it responded to a jury question with a 

supplemental instruction that defendant could 

be found to be an accomplice; (3) the court 

should have granted his motion to suppress the 

wiretaps . . . .
4 A-3598-15T4

[Casilla, supra, No. A-4838-10 (slip op. at 

2-3) (citing Casilla, supra, 362 N.J. Super.

at 561).]

On his appeal from the denial of his first PCR petition, we 

rejected defendant's arguments that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to:

(1) file a motion challenging the legality of 

his warrantless arrest; (2) file a motion to 

suppress his confession; (3) ensure during 

jury selection that some of the jurors spoke 

or understood Spanish; (4) object to the jury 

instruction on accomplice liability as to 

count four (murder); (5) challenge the 

validity of the indictment; and (6) object to 

hearsay evidence. 

[Casilla, supra, No. A-2994-05 (slip op. at 

1).]

Lastly, we rejected the following arguments on defendant's 

appeal from the denial of his second PCR petition:

Defendant asserted the following 

specific claims of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel:

failed to effectively challenge 

Court Clerk's actions, causing the 

jury to deliver an irreconcilable 

and/or inconsistent verdict[; . . .] 

failed to challenge Court's 

sentencing for murder charges, a 

charge for which defendant had been 

found Not Guilty[; . . . and] failed 

to effectively challenge conviction 

for felony murder based on an 

accomplice liability theory, when 

in fact accomplice liability had 

never been charge on indictment in 

connection with count five, felony 
5 A-3598-15T4

murder and accomplice liability was 

never specifically charge[d] by the 

judge, among numerous other 

critical failures.

According to defendant, trial counsel was 

also "grossly ineffective" at the resentencing 

in: (1) not challenging the court's imposition 

of consecutive sentences on felony murder and 

second-degree kidnapping, which he asserts is 

an illegal sentence, and (2) allowing him to 

be convicted as an accomplice to felony murder 

without having been indicted for that crime 

and without the court specifically charging 

that offense in connection with felony murder.

Defendant alleged appellate counsel was 

"egregiously ineffective" in failing to 

identify and effectively raise the above 

instances of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, 

and "blatantly ineffective" in failing to 

challenge on appeal the above instances of the 

court's violation of defendant's 

constitutionally guaranteed due process 

rights.

Defendant also alleged ineffective 

assistance of first PCR counsel in failing "to 

adequately prepare and exercise normal 

customary skills in preparation" of his PCR 

and failing to investigate and properly assert 

his meritorious claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial and appellate counsel and 

the constitutional errors of the court.

[Casilla, supra, No. A-4838-15 (slip op. at 

9-11).]

On this appeal from his third PCR petition, defendant makes 

these arguments:
6 A-3598-15T4

POINT I:

DEFENDANT FILES AS PRO SE LITIGANT ASSERTS 

EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND SEEKS PROCEDURAL DUE 

PROCESS, TO DEFEND LIFE AND LIBERTY PURSUANT 

TO N.J. CONST. ART. I PAR. 1 (Partially raised 

below).

A. Petitioners documents and 

arguments are held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.

B. Excusable Neglect.

C. Right to Due Process.

POINT II:

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT DURING 

VOIR DIRE. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE 

DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT SIDE BAR, 

THIS VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS UNDER U.S. CONST.

AMEND. 6; N.J. CONST. ART 1, PAR. 10 CAUSING 

BIAS AND PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT BY INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (Raised below). 

POINT III:

DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY BROUGH [sic] TO TRIAL 

TO STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COURTS FROM SAME CRIME 

THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON CHARGES THAT 

WHERE BEING PROSECUTED, TO ALLOW STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY MERGE OTHER CHARGES AND PROSECUTE TO 

ACHIVE [sic] MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION 

TO DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, 

ELEVENTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (Raised below).

A. Double Jeopardy.

POINT IV: 

DEFENDANT [sic] SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO CODE 

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DEFENDANT IS HELD ON AN 
7 A-3598-15T4

ILLEGALLY IMPOSED SENTENCE THAT ERRONEOUSLY 

APPLIED THE NO EARLY RELEASE ACT, WHICH 

ACTUALLY IMPOSED "SIMULTANEOUS SENTENCES", 

AND ONCE CORRECTED WILL REVEAL THE ACTUAL 

SENTENCING ELIGIBILITY TO SATISFY THE

SENTENCE, AND MAKE ENTRY OF CORRECTED JUDGMENT 

OF CONVICTION, HAVING ALL SENTECES [sic] BEEN 

SATISIED [sic] (Raised below). 

A. The No Early Release Act, is 

inapplicable to instant Defendant 

and infers to false Imprisonment.

B. The Court did not satisfy the 

persistent offender Act and 

actually imposed "simultaneous 

convictions", which places the 

convictions to be satisfied.

POINT V:

NO OTHER CONCLUSION CAN BE REACHED BUT THAT 

THE EFFECT OF CUMULATIVE TRIAL ERRORS, 

COMBINED WITH TRIAL, APPELLATE, AND 1ST PCR 

COUNSEL'S OMISSIONS, DURESS, AND PREJUDICE, 

DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (Raised 

below).

POINT VI:

DEFENDANT'S JUDGMENT SHOULD BE VACATED BECAUSE 

TRIAL, APPELLATE, AND 1ST PCR COUNSELS 

PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

(Raised below).

POINT VII:

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS SHOULD BE GRANTED 

A. The prevailing Legal principles 

Regarding Claims of Ineffective 

Assistance of Counsel, Evidentiary 

Hearings And Petitions For PostConviction Relief.
8 A-3598-15T4

The trial court determined defendant's third PCR petition was 

time-barred, Rule 3:22-12(a)(2), and dismissed it, Rule 3:22-

4(b). The court also determined defendant had raised no 

substantial issues of fact or law, and thus had not established 

good cause to assign counsel. Rule 3:22-6(b).

We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by the 

trial court in its written decision. Defendant's arguments are 

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(2).

Affirmed.