SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3286

- 18T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. CHARLES SHEPPARD, a/k/a C HARLES COWARD, Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted January 15, 2020

– Decided Before Judges Whipple and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 14

- 08

- 2323. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Linda A nne Shashoua, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

January 31, 20202 A

- 3286

- 18T4

Defendant Charles Sheppard appeals from a December 14, 2018 order denying his petit i on for post

- conviction relief ( PCR ) without an evidentiary hearing

. We affirm. In 2013, defendant confessed to the murder of Rhonda Scott during an interview with members of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office homicide unit, who were investigating Scott's death

. In 2016, p rior to pleading guilty t o the murder, defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession. The trial judge conducted a hearing and reviewed evidence, including defendant's videotaped confession. The judge denied the motion and ruled his confession was voluntary
and admissible. Relevant to the issues raised in this appeal, she concluded "[d]efendant was coherent. He was calm. He was speaking clearly. His answers were intelligent. They were responsive." Afterwards, defendant pled guilty to first

degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:1 1

- 3(a)(1) and (2) , and admitted he stabbed Scott numerous times with a knife , knowing it would kill her. Defendant received a thirty

- year sentence with thirty years of parole ineligibility

. We affirmed his sentence on appeal

. In 2018 , defendant filed his PCR petition. Among other grounds, he alleged his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to have an expert evaluate3 A

- 3286

- 18T4

him to determine if he was mentally competent or suffered from diminished capacity

. Defendant argued his plea counsel knew defendant had a "difficult
childhood , " "took medicine for his anger," and suffered from "black outs." The PCR judge denied defendant's petition. Regarding the mental health, competency , and alleged diminished capacity, the judge concluded as follows:

Other than t he isolated point raised by counsel here, there's nothing else in the record to implicate the defendant's mental health, certainly nothing to indicate an actual mental

- health diagnosis that would trigger an obligation of trial counsel to . . . request a co mpetency evaluation. Also, . . . in the PCR record, there's nothing to indicate here from any profession [al] . . . how . . . any potential mental[]health issue could have affected the defendant's ability to assist his defense or could have constituted a d efense to the crimes to which he pled guilty and was sentenced. We have the defendant's statement that his counsel failed to order a psychological evaluation . . . or psychiatric evaluation, but the [c]ourt concluded that . . . none of that is enough to establish a prima facie case that trial counsel was objectively deficient in not ordering a competency evaluation or a mental[]health evaluation. Defendant raises the following point on this appeal:
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON [DEFENDANT'S] CLAIM THAT PLEA COUNSEL PROVIDED HIM WITH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL4 A

- 3286

- 18T4 BY FAILING TO HAVE HIM EVALUATED BY A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL. The Sixth Amendment o f the Unite d States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel. State v. O'Neil , 219 N.J. 598, 610 (2014) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 686 ( 1984) ) ; s ee also State v. Fritz , 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must meet the two

- part test established by Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687, and our Supreme Court adopted in Fritz , 105 N.J

. at 58. Under Strickland , a defendant first must show that his or her attorney made errors "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland , 466 U.S. at
687. Counsel's performance is deficient if it falls " below an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688. A defendant also must show that counsel's "deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Id. at 687. He must establish "there is a reasonable probability that, but f or counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. "A reasonable probability5 A

- 3286

- 18T4

is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome" of the proceeding. Ibid

. We review a PCR court's decis ion to proceed without an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. State v. Brewster , 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 ( App. Div. 2013) (citing State v. Marshall , 148 N.J. 89, 157

- 58 (1997)). A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petitio n if he or she presents a prima facie case in support of PCR, the court determines there are material issues of fact that cannot be resolved based on the existing record, and the court finds that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the claims
pre sented. R. 3:22

- 10(b); see also State v. Porter , 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013) (citing R. 3:22

- 10(b)). The court must "view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant." State v. Preciose , 129 N.J. 451, 46 2

- 6 3 (1992). A defendant
"must do more than make bald assertions , " and must instead "allege facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance." State v. Cummings , 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). "[V]ague, conclusory, or speculative" allegations will not suffice. Porter , 216 N.J. at 355 (quoting Marshall , 148 N.J. at 158). We are convinced the PCR judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing. As the judge noted,6 A

- 3286

- 18T4

the record lac ks any evidence defendant's competency to stand trial or mental health were i n issue , let alone material fact s in dispute, necessitating a hearing. The record reflects that from his confession, to his plea and sentencing, defendant answered questions coge ntly and was satisfied with his counsel's services. Finally, defendant was twenty

- seven years old at sentencing. He faced life in prison but received a much lower sentence. A side from the bald assertion raised on this appeal, he failed to demonstrate h is counsel 's performance was deficient.
Affirmed.