SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3286-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHARLES SHEPPARD, a/k/a

CHARLES 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 Anne 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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, 2020
2

A-3286-18T4

Defendant Charles Sheppard appeals from a December 14, 2018 order 

denying his petition 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, prior to pleading guilty to 

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 firstdegree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(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 evaluate
3

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 the 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 competency 

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 defense 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 COUNSEL 
4

A-3286-18T4

BY FAILING TO HAVE HIM EVALUATED BY A 

MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL. 

The Sixth Amendment of the United 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)); see 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 for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. "A reasonable probability 
5

A-3286-18T4

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

proceeding. Ibid.

We review a PCR court's decision 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 petition 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 

presented. 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, 462-63 (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 lacks any evidence defendant's competency to stand trial or mental 

health were in issue, let alone material facts in dispute, necessitating a hearing. 

The record reflects that from his confession, to his plea and sentencing, 

defendant answered questions cogently 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. Aside from the bald assertion 

raised on this appeal, he failed to demonstrate his counsel's performance was 

deficient. 

Affirmed.