SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1452-18T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN V. MAURRASSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted April 28, 2020 – Decided May 12, 2020

Before Judges Accurso and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 12-03-

0208.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on 

the briefs).

Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Amanda Paige Frankel, 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-1452-18T2

Defendant Stephen Maurrasse appeals an order denying his petition for 

post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Because 

defendant's petition is procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-5, we affirm.

Following the denials of his motions to suppress his statement and 

evidence seized from his apartment, a jury convicted defendant of armed 

robbery and weapons offenses, charged in the same Somerset County indictment 

as his co-defendant, Jeremy Grant. The judge sentenced defendant to an 

aggregate thirteen-year prison term subject to the No Early Release Act, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

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

v. Grant, No. A-5470-13 (App. Div. Mar. 13, 2017) (slip op. at 32). The 

Supreme Court denied certification on October 16, 2017.

1 We incorporate by 

reference the facts and procedural history set forth in our prior opinion. Id. at 

1-9. 

Pertinent to this appeal, Grant provided a statement to police inculpating 

himself and defendant in the knife-point robbery of a victim, who had responded

to a Craigslist advertisement for discounted cellphones and tablets. Id. at 1-4. 

1

 Defendant was tried separately from Grant, but we consolidated their appeals 

and issued one opinion.
3

A-1452-18T2

The cellphone number listed in the advertisement was subscribed to defendant's 

girlfriend. Id. at 4. Pursuant to a communication data warrant, police 

intercepted incriminating text messages that had been exchanged between that 

cellphone number and Grant's cellphone on the day of the robbery. Id. at 5. 

After Grant gave his statement, the police responded to defendant's 

apartment. Ibid. Defendant's girlfriend answered the door and told police 

defendant was not home. Ibid. But, "police saw a man in the back of the 

apartment." Ibid. "An officer called out [defendant]'s name, stated that he 

wanted to talk with him, and [defendant] began walking towards the officer." 

Id. at 5. The police entered the apartment and arrested defendant without a 

warrant. Id. at 5, 29. 

When police asked defendant's girlfriend to accompany them to 

headquarters, she responded that "she needed to bring her child and gather her 

belongings." Id. at 6. Accompanying the girlfriend to the bedroom, the police

observed a cellphone on the bed, and seized it after confirming it was identified 

with the same number listed in the Craigslist advertisement. Ibid. After waiving 

his Miranda2rights, defendant gave a statement implicating Grant and himself 

in the robbery. Id. at 6. 

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 
4

A-1452-18T2

On direct appeal, defendant argued the trial court erroneously denied his

suppression motions. Id. at 10-11. Defendant claimed police coerced him to 

make the statement, asserting they would otherwise arrest his pregnant 

girlfriend; and "the cellphone should have been suppressed because the police 

entered his apartment without a warrant, and saw and seized the phone when 

they illegally followed his girlfriend into a bedroom." Id. at 27. We rejected 

both arguments. Id. at 27, 29-30.

In reaching our decision, we expressly recognized:

[Defendant] argues that the police did not have a 

warrant and they entered the apartment without 

consent. He goes on to argue that there were no other 

exceptions justifying the entry into the apartment. In 

response, the State argues that [defendant] never 

challenged the entry into the apartment before the trial 

court.

We need not over analyze those contentions. The 

record developed during the suppression hearing 

demonstrates that [defendant] raised an issue as to the 

entry into the apartment. The trial court, however, 

properly rejected that argument finding that there was 

probable cause to arrest [defendant]. Thus, when the 

detectives saw [defendant] in the apartment, they had 

the right to step into the apartment and arrest him.

[Id. at 29-30 (emphasis added).]

We distinguished "[t]he facts as found by the trial court" from those in

State v. Legette, 227 N.J. 460 (2017): 
5

A-1452-18T2

In Legette, the [C]ourt held that it is not permissible for 

the police to follow the suspect into his home during an 

investigatory stop. Here, in contrast, the trial court 

found that the police had probable cause to arrest 

[defendant]. Moreover, the police did not enter the 

apartment until they saw and verified that [defendant] 

was present. Under these circumstances, the entry into 

the apartment was lawful.

[Grant, slip op. at 30 (emphasis added).]

Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition claiming his trial and appellate 

counsel were ineffective. Defendant asserted trial counsel should have moved 

to suppress his statement "because it was the product of an illegal arrest and 

unattenuated detention." Acknowledging the trial court found probable cause 

existed "to arrest him, in the context of the seizure of plain-view evidence," 

defendant nonetheless asserted his trial attorney should have called him to 

testify to explain the circumstances of his arrest were not as police described. 

Defendant also acknowledged his "appellate attorney argued that the entry into 

his home was illegal," but asserted that "argument was made in the context of 

suppressing the cellphone that was seized" and not to support his claim that his 

post-arrest statement was the fruit of an illegal arrest.

Following oral argument, the PCR judge, who did not decide defendant's 

suppression motions, issued the order under review accompanied by a thorough 

written decision. Citing our opinion on defendant's direct appeal, the judge 
6

A-1452-18T2

determined, "regardless of the context in which appellate counsel argued the

[suppression] issue, the Appellate Division found the arrest lawful." Because 

we had previously adjudicated the claims defendant raised on PCR, the judge 

determined they were procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-5. 

The PCR judge also addressed the merits of defendant's assertion that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to permit him to testify on his own behalf at 

the suppression hearing. The judge recognized the existence of several 

"strategic reasons for a defense attorney to refrain from calling a defendant " as 

a witness in a suppression hearing. Those reasons may include "prematurely 

reveal[ing] trial strategy [thereby] hinder[ing] one's defense," and using that 

testimony against the defendant should he testify at trial. Accordingly, the judge 

concluded "under Strickland,

3

trial counsel's assistance did not fall below an 

objective standard of reasonableness, and furthermore, [defendant] was not 

prejudiced by counsel's decision." 

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (enunciating a twopronged test a defendant must satisfy to establish a prima facie case of 

ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel was deficient or made egregious 

errors, so serious that counsel was not functioning effectively as guaranteed by 

the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and counsel's deficient 

performance actually prejudiced the accused's defense); see also State v. Fritz, 

105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland analysis in New Jersey).
7

A-1452-18T2

POINT I

TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY 

FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER 

THE POLICE WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN 

ARREST WARRANT PRIOR TO ENTERING THE 

DEFENDANT'S PREMISES AND ARRESTING HIM

POINT II

THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

POINT III

THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO DE NOVO

REVIEW, AND NO DEFERENCE SHOULD BE 

GIVEN TO THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION 

BELOW. 

More particularly, defendant contends his PCR petition was not 

procedurally barred because trial counsel "never challenged the illegal and 

warrantless police entry" and, as such, we did not decide that issue on appeal. 

Defendant claims our decision concerning defendant's arrest was dictum 

because the record was not fully developed before us to decide the issue. 

Defendant abandons his arguments against appellate counsel and that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to call him as a witness at trial. Instead, 

defendant seeks a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing so that trial counsel can 
8

A-1452-18T2

"explain why he thought that the police may enter a residence based solely on 

probable cause" without a warrant.

Because defendant's contentions on appeal challenge the PCR judge's 

legal conclusions, our review is de novo. State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 278 

(2012). Having conducted that review here, we conclude defendant's 

contentions lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR judge 

in his well-reasoned decision, adding only the following comments.

When an issue has been determined on the merits in a prior appeal it 

cannot be re-litigated in a later appeal of the same case, even if of constitutional 

dimension. R. 3:22-5; State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 484 (1997). The Rule

3:22-5 bar will preclude a PCR argument if the issue "is identical or 

substantially equivalent" to the issue previously adjudicated on its merits. 

McQuaid, 147 N.J. at 484. The procedural bar is consistent with New Jersey's 

public policy, which aims "to promote finality in judicial proceedings." Id. at 

483. 

As the PCR judge correctly determined, we expressly addressed

defendant's warrantless arrest on direct appeal. Grant, slip op. at 29-30. And, 

as we observed, trial counsel "raised an issue as to the entry into the apartment" 
9

A-1452-18T2

before the trial court. Id. at 29. Accordingly, because that "substantially 

equivalent" issue was raised in defendant's PCR petition and decided on direct 

appeal, Rule 3:22-5 precluded the PCR judge's consideration of defendant's 

argument. 

Affirmed.