NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0677-16T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

CLIFFORD HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Argued telephonically June 7, 2018 –

Decided June 20, 2018

Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 

96-05-0548.

Clifford Harris, appellant, argued the cause 

pro se.

Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued 

the cause for respondent (Michael A. 

Monahan, Acting Union County Prosecutor, 

attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM
2 A-0677-16T4

Defendant Clifford Harris appeals from the August 29, 2016 

Law Division order denying his second petition for post-conviction

relief (PCR). Because the trial judge failed to make any 

meaningful findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of 

his decision, we are constrained to reverse and remand for 

further proceedings.

After a jury found defendant guilty of murder, possession 

of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of 

a weapon, the trial court sentenced defendant to a thirty-year 

term of imprisonment, with a thirty-year period of parole 

ineligibility, for murder, and a concurrent four-year term for 

unlawful possession of a weapon.1 On defendant's direct appeal, 

we affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court 

denied certification. State v. Harris, No. A-2261-97 (Oct. 23, 

2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 629 (2001).

Defendant subsequently filed a petition for PCR in which he 

alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective in various 

respects. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial 

court denied defendant's petition, and we affirmed this 

determination. State v. Harris, No. A-0728-04 (Mar. 28, 2006).

1 The court merged defendant's conviction for possession of a 

weapon for an unlawful purpose into his conviction for murder.
3 A-0677-16T4

In June 2016, defendant filed his second petition for PCR. 

Among other things, defendant alleged that his sentence was illegal

because the trial court failed to: (1) grant him appropriate 

"good time" credits against his period of parole ineligibility; 

(2) properly apply this court's decision in Merola v. Department 

of Corrections, 285 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 1995); and (3) 

take into account certain amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b) that 

he believed affected the constitutionality of his sentence.

Without conducting oral argument or a hearing, the trial 

court denied defendant's petition in a one-sentence order that 

merely stated: "ORDERED, that the petition for [PCR] is hereby 

denied for failure to allege on its face a basis to preclude 

dismissal under N.J.C.R. [sic] 3:22-4(b)." The court did not 

make any findings of fact concerning defendant's contentions, 

state what specific arguments it considered, or explain its 

reasoning or conclusions of law in connection with its terse 

ruling. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant presents the same contentions he raised 

before the trial court. He asserts that he "is entitled to 

'good time' credits which were already entered on his official 

classification records, to complete his entire thirty-year 

sentence, or, in the alternative, a hearing to determine whether 

the denial of the application of these credits violates the
4 A-0677-16T4

constitutions of New Jersey and the United States." However, we 

are unable to review this issue because the trial court ignored 

its duty to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

No one – not the parties and not this court – can properly 

function or proceed without some understanding of why a judge 

has rendered a particular ruling. See Curtis v. Finneran, 83 

N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring trial court to clearly state 

its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal

conclusions). The failure to provide findings of fact and 

conclusions of law "constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the 

attorneys and the appellate court." Ibid. (quoting Kenwood Assocs. 

v. Bd. of Adjustment, Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 

1976)). As our colleague, Judge Jose Fuentes, recently stated, 

"our function as an appellate court is to review the decision of 

the trial court, not to decide the motion tabula rasa." Estate of 

Doerfler v. Federal Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018) 

(slip op. at 5).

While this was defendant's second petition for PCR, its 

resolution still "required a careful analysis and the requisite 

findings to insure a just result. Fact-finding is just that. 

It is not a recitation of [a court rule] but a clear and concise 

demonstration that the litigant[] [has] been heard and [his]
5 A-0677-16T4

arguments considered. Justice requires no less." Bailey v. Bd. 

of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001).

Accordingly, we reverse the August 29, 2016 order. We 

remand this matter with the direction that the trial court 

consider defendant's contentions, and make detailed findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on all the issues raised, within 

forty-five days of the date of this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.