SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0101-17T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD A. MUNOZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted March 6, 2019 – Decided August 23, 2019

Before Judges Fuentes and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 11-02-0230.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Mark Zavotsky, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (Erin M. Campbell, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0101-17T4

On March 13, 2013, defendant Richard A. Munoz was tried before a jury 

over four non-sequential days on the charges of murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) 

or (2), felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3), first degree robbery, N.J.S.A.

2C:15-1, third degree possession of a weapon (knife) for an unlawful purpose, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d), and fourth degree unlawful possession of a knife, N.J.S.A.

2C:39-5(d). On March 23, 2013, the jury found defendant guilty of second 

degree robbery as a lesser included offense of first degree armed robbery, and 

acquitted him of all of the remaining charges.

On May 10, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to a term of eight years, 

subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility and three years of 

parole supervision, as mandated by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-

7.2. On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence, State 

v. Munoz, No. A-5733-12 (App. Div. November 18, 2015), and the Supreme 

Court denied his petition for certification. State v. Munoz, 224 N.J. 247 (2016). 

We incorporate by reference the facts we described in our opinion affirming 

defendant's conviction. Munoz, slip op. at 2-5.

On July 11, 2016, defendant filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) 

petition in which he argues the sentence imposed by the court was excessive and 

that he did not receive a fair trial. The court assigned counsel to assist defendant 
3

A-0101-17T4

prosecute the petition. PCR counsel thereafter filed an amended petition arguing 

defendant received ineffective assistance by both trial and appellate counsel.

The matter came for oral argument before Judge Martha T. Mainor on 

April 27, 2017. PCR counsel argued appellate counsel should have raised on 

direct appeal that defendant was denied a fair trial based on the trial judge's bias, 

as evidenced by the judge's comments and interactions with defense counsel in 

the presence of the jury. Judge Mainor found defendant presented sufficient 

grounds to warrant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 3:22-10(b). See

State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). The court conducted the

evidentiary hearing on June 22, 2017. The State called defendant's appellate 

counsel as a witness. Defendant did not call any witnesses nor testify on his 

own behalf. Judge Mainor found no grounds to find ineffective assistance of 

counsel and denied defendant's PCR petition in an oral opinion delivered from 

the bench.

Defendant now appeals from the order of the Criminal Part raising the 

following arguments.

POINT I

TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR 

FAILING TO REQUEST THE JUDGE RECUSE 

HIMSELF FOR NUMEROUS CONTEMPT 

THREATS AND THREAT UPON DEFENSE 
4

A-0101-17T4

COUNSEL'S LICENSE TO PRACTICE, ALL WHICH 

TAINTED THE JURY AND PREVENTED COUNSEL 

FROM EXERCISING DEFENDANT'S 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE 

WITNESS AGAINST HIM. 

POINT II

APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR 

NOT RAISING DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT 

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE 

NUMEROUS COURT RULINGS AND 

INTERJECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL 

PRODUCED A CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF BIAS 

WARRANTNG A MISTRIAL.

We reject these arguments and affirm. This court reviews a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test established by the 

United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), 

and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 

58 (1987). First, defendant must demonstrate that defense counsel's 

performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Second, he must show 

there exists "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.

Judge Mainor conducted an evidentiary hearing where she considered the 

testimony of defendant's appellate counsel and found no legal basis to question 

her professional judgment in this case. The record developed at this hearing 
5

A-0101-17T4

supports Judge Mainor's decision to deny defendant's PCR petition. We thus 

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mainor in her oral 

decision delivered on June 22, 2017.

Affirmed.