RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2527-18T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDMOND BENTON, a/k/a

JOE TRUCK, and EDMUND

BENTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted January 23, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Whipple.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Mercer County, Indictment Nos. 14-01-0065 

and 14-01-0066, and Accusation No. 14-07-0348.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Craig S. Leeds, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Tasha Marie Kersey, Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 4, 2020
2

A-2527-18T2

PER CURIAM

Defendant Edmond Benton appeals from the November 2, 2018 order

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary 

hearing. Defendant was charged under two indictments and an accusation. On 

January 15, 2014 defendant was indicted for three counts of fourth-degree 

violations of community supervision for life under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d). The 

same day, he was charged under a second indictment with third- and fourthdegree failure to register as a convicted sex offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a) 

and 2(d)1. The accusation charged defendant with another fourth-degree 

violation of community supervision for life. In July 2014, defendant pled guilty

to some of the charges, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and was 

sentenced to concurrent eighteen-month flat sentences for the indictments, and 

a consecutive six-month sentence for the accusation. 

Defendant did not file a direct appeal, but filed a PCR petition in January 

2016, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. After hearing oral argument 

and reviewing the record, Judge Ronald Susswein denied the petition both on 

procedural grounds and on the merits. Judge Susswein found that defendant had 

not established a prima facie case for PCR, and that an evidentiary hearing was 

unnecessary because there were no material facts that could not be resolved 
3

A-2527-18T2

without reference to the existing record. Applying the Strickland/Fritz1

standard, the judge explained why defendant had not established a prima facie 

case requiring an evidentiary hearing nor established that but for counsel's 

alleged errors he would not have pled guilty and would have gone to trial. 

Because we affirm for the reasons explained in the thorough written 

opinion of Judge Susswein, we need not re-address defendant's arguments, but 

we add the following comments. We reject defendant's argument he was denied 

effective assistance of trial counsel under the standard set forth in Strickland

and Fritz. Defendant has not shown counsel's performance was insufficient 

because trial counsel made "errors so serious that counsel was not functioning 

as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

687. Nor has defendant shown that counsel's performance fell below objective 

standards of reasonableness, or that he was prejudiced by the deficient 

performance he alleges. Id. at 687-88, 692. Defendant's arguments to the 

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

3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 

(1987).