SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5304-18

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

OREADER CALLAWAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted March 8, 2021 – Decided November 18, 2021

Before Judges Hoffman and Smith.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 

13-08-0662.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen C. Sayer, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5304-18

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SMITH, J.A.D.

Defendant appeals from the June 17, 2019 Law Division order denying 

his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We 

affirm for the reasons set forth below. 

I.

Because we heard this matter on direct appeal, State v. Callaway

(Callaway I), No. A-4413-14 (App. Div. June 29, 2017) (slip op. at 2-3), we 

incorporate its factual narrative for brevity's sake. We recite only those facts 

germane to resolving the issues on appeal before us. 

On the morning of June 30, 2012, Barbara Glaspey was asleep in her home 

when she suddenly heard a loud noise. She awoke to a man breaking into her 

bedroom threatening to kill her. The man gestured, with a covered hand that 

was outstretched as though it contained a weapon, and instructed Glaspey to put

all of her jewelry and money into empty pillowcases. 

Meanwhile, Glaspey's neighbor, Scott Lang, noticed what appeared to be 

a fire department vehicle (a red truck with white lettering on the side) parked 

outside of Glaspey's home. Fifteen minutes after making this observation, 

Glaspey came to his home and told him what had happened to her. Mr. Lang 
3

A-5304-18

then called the police to report the incident and provided them with a description 

of the vehicle. 

Shortly thereafter, Officer Gerald McCreery received a call on his police 

radio informing him of the reported burglary. The call relayed the details of the 

incident, including the description of a red, flat-body pickup truck with white 

lettering on the side. Officer McCreery departed for the burglarized home, but

as he neared the location of the reported incident, he noticed a truck matching 

the vehicle description parked at a 7-Eleven. 

Officer McCreery immediately turned his vehicle around and pulled into 

the 7-Eleven parking lot. He exited his vehicle and verified that the red truck 

he observed was nearly identical to the description of the suspect's vehicle. 

Looking into the truck's flatbed, the officer saw it contained pillowcases with 

valuables stuffed inside, as well as a flat screen TV. Officer Daniel Hider then 

arrived on the scene. The record shows that the officers obtained a description 

of the suspect from a witness, J.P., who stated that he observed defendant park 

and exit the vehicle at the 7-Eleven. The officers were also in possession of 

Glaspey's description of the suspect. Finally, the record also shows that

defendant, who was sweating profusely on a cool day, was apprehended by the 

officers near the store shortly thereafter.
4

A-5304-18

A grand jury returned Indictment Number 13-08-0662, charging 

defendant with first-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery, third-degree 

receiving stolen property, fourth-degree resisting arrest, third-degree terroristic 

threats, and second-degree burglary. The trial took place on January 13, 2015, 

and the jury convicted defendant of first-degree robbery, second-degree

kidnapping, second-degree burglary, third-degree terroristic threats, and two 

counts of receiving stolen property. On February 27, 2015 defendant was 

sentenced to life in prison on the count of first-degree robbery, and he also 

received a series of lesser concurrent sentences. On direct appeal, we affirmed 

as to all issues. See Callaway I. 

Defendant filed a timely PCR application through counsel and added a 

supplemental pro se application raising additional issues. The PCR judge, the 

Hon. Joseph M. Chiarello, J.S.C., heard argument on June 17, 2019 and denied 

defendant's application in its entirety. After thoroughly reviewing the trial 

record and the issues disposed of on direct appeal, the judge issued a detailed 

and cogent oral opinion with specific findings on each PCR claim. 

The judge first addressed defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel

claim. Defendant maintained that his counsel was ineffective for two reasons:

because counsel "failed to fully investigate the circumstances of his arrest" and
5

A-5304-18

because of "inconsistencies [in the] testimony from the [arresting] officers." 

Regarding the inconsistent testimony, defendant argued that his trial counsel 

should have ordered a copy of the Salem County municipal court transcript 

because it would have demonstrated these alleged discrepancies and allowed 

trial counsel to impeach the credibility of the two officers. The judge found that 

the record adequately addressed both claims. 

Specifically, he found that we addressed "the circumstances of the arrest" 

in Callaway I by concluding that the totality of the circumstances provided the 

officers with probable cause to arrest the defendant. Callaway I, slip op. at 10. 

The judge also found, after lengthy oral argument, that there was no inconsistent 

testimony from the arresting officers. He determined that that the trial record 

showed the officers spoke to the witness at the 7-Eleven together, not separately,

as argued by the defense. Based on the entire record developed at defendant's 

trial and subsequent appeal, the judge concluded that failing to obtain the 

municipal court transcript was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defendant's PCR application also contained an impermissible bolstering 

argument regarding footprint evidence proffered by the State at trial. In 

evaluating this claim, the judge noted that the State's witness did not testify that 

the footprint belonged to defendant's shoe, but rather that the footprint she 
6

A-5304-18

observed matched the style of defendant's shoe. The judge examined the 

foundation laid prior to her testimony and found that none of the questions posed 

to her constituted bolstering. 

Next, the judge reviewed defendant's pro se claims, including: "not calling 

a witness, failing to object to [certain trial] stipulations, failing to call [a] State 

witness, and failing to object to the introduction of evidence." The judge 

concluded that these claims were unsupported, rendering them "bald assertions." 

Finally, the judge found that if there had been any errors, they were not 

prejudicial ones which would have changed the outcome of the trial under 

Strickland.

1 See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992). Appealing the 

PCR decision, defendant makes the following arguments: 

POINT ONE

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. 

CALLAWAY AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS 

TESTIMONY IS NEEDED FROM PRE-TRIAL 

COUNSEL REGARDING HER FAILURE TO 

PROPERLY INVESTIGATE AND OBTAIN THE 

SALEM COUNTY 404(B) TRANSCRIPTS AND 

NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE RECORDING TO 

IMPEACH THE CREDIBILITY OF STATE 

WITNESSES. (RAISED BELOW)

1

 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
7

A-5304-18

POINT TWO

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. 

CALLAWAY AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE STATE 

BOLSTERING THE CREDIBILITY OF A LAY 

WITNESS. (RAISED BELOW)

II.

Where a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, we "conduct

a de novo review of both the factual findings and legal conclusions of the PCR

court." State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting State

v Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004)). When petitioning for PCR, a defendant

must establish he is entitled to "PCR by a preponderance of the evidence." State

v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351, 370 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Preciose, 129

N.J. at 459). 

We analyze ineffective assistance of counsel claims by using the twoprong test established by the Supreme Court in Strickland. See Preciose, 129

N.J. at 463; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). The first prong of

the Strickland test requires a defendant to establish counsel's performance was

deficient. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463. "The second, and far more difficult, prong

is whether there exists 'a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
8

A-5304-18

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" 

Id. at 463-64 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). 

There exists a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate

assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable

professional judgment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Further, because prejudice

is not presumed, defendant must demonstrate how specific errors by counsel

undermined the reliability of the proceeding. State v. Drisco, 355 N.J. Super

283, 289-90 (App. Div. 2002) (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659

n.26 (1984)).

III.

Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue 

what he argues were inconsistencies in the testimony of Officers McCreery and 

Hider regarding facts surrounding the identification of defendant while the 

officers were searching for him, prior to his apprehension. We disagree, as this

argument is premised upon facts not in the record. A review of the testimony 

indicates that defendant's current recollection is inaccurate. 

While defendant claims that both officers testified as to having been the 

only one to speak to J.P. and obtain a description of defendant, the actual 

testimony adduced at trial from both officers tells a clearly different, united 
9

A-5304-18

story. Officer McCreery arrived at the 7-Eleven, followed by Officer Hider 

shortly thereafter. The officers met at the front of the store, where Officer Hider 

then shouted for the customers within to tell them who was driving the red truck 

in the parking lot. In response, an individual at the front of the store said out 

loud, and in the hearing range of both officers, a description of defendant who

had been seen with the red truck. Both officers then testified consistently at trial 

that they heard this description of defendant and acted upon this information. 

This account of the events was clearly articulated by both officers in their 

testimony, and the supposed contradictions asserted by defendant are not 

supported in the record. Defendant has failed to show ineffective assistance of 

counsel where there was no contradiction in the arresting officers' testimony for 

trial counsel to exploit. No evidentiary hearing is warranted under these facts.

See State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (citations omitted).

We turn to defendant's next argument, in which he contends that the State 

improperly bolstered its witness testimony at trial. Our de novo review of the 

record leads us to conclude that there was no basis in the record to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Chiarello in 

his comprehensive oral opinion. 
10 A-5304-18

Any arguments not addressed here are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). 

Affirmed.