N.J. COURT RULE 1:11-2.
POINT IV THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN HER RULING WHEN SHE STATED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT EVERY CRITICAL STAGE OF HIS DEFENSE AND WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF CRITICAL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT DECISION TO PERMIT SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONST. VI, XIV.
5 A-3540-15T4 POINT V THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN ITS [sic] RULING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL, APPELLATE, AND PCR COUNSEL FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL FAILURE TO PROPERLY OBJECT OR ADVANCE THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE STATE'S WITNESS [sic] ABOUT THEIR OTHER CRIMES OR BAD ACTS, IN VIOLATION OF U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV.
POINT VI THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN HER DETERMINATION THAT THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT IMPLY THAT ONCE A CRIMINAL APPELLANT CHOOSES TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND TESTIFY, HE THEN HAS THE BURDEN TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE. AND THAT NO CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS NEEDED IN THE FINAL JURY CHARGE, AND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT FAIL TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTS TO THE APPELLANT, OR THE APPELLANT HAVE [sic] AN OBLIGATION TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE OR OFFER ANY PROOF OF HIS INNOCENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AS GUARANTEED BY U.S. CONST. AMENDS V, XIV.
POINT VII THE PCR JUDGE ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT MAKE NUMEROUS ERRORS, OMISSIONS, AND ABBREVIATIONS TO THE FINAL JURY CHARGE, WHICH DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT OF A PROPERLY INSTRUCTED JURY AND A FAIR TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI AND XIV.
POINT VIII THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN HER RULING THAT APPELLANT DID NOT SATISFY THE SECOND PRONG OF THE STANDARD SET IN STRICKLAND WHEN SHE STATED THAT HIS PRETRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS OR SANITIZE PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS AND N.J.R.E. 404(B) EVIDENCE SEIZE [sic] PURSUANT TO THE DEFENDANT'S ARREST. EVIDENCE THAT WAS SEIZED OVER SIX MONTHS AFTER
6 A-3540-15T4 THE INSTANT OFFENSE, WAS UNRELATED TO THE INSTANT OFFENSE WAS IMPROPERLY ADVANCED BY THE STATE TO PROVE "FLIGHT." THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND A FAIR TRIAL. ADDITIONALLY APPELLATE AND PCR COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ADVANCE THIS CLAIM.
POINT IX THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN HER DECISION THAT PRETRIAL AND TRIAL COUNSEL WERE NOT INEFFECTIVE WHEN THEY EACH FAILED TO FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL THE STATE TO PROVIDE CALL LOG EVIDENCE FOR OTHER PHONE AND BEEPER NUMBERS RELATED TO THIS CASE, AS WELL AS THE CALL OUT LOGS FOR POLICE AND OTHER EMERGENCY RESPONDER [sic], TO REFUTE THE VERACITY OF THE STATE'S STAR WITNESSES AGAINST THIS APPELLANT.
POINT X THE PCR JUDGE ERRED IN HER DECISION THAT APPELLANT DID NOT PRESENT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE TO REVEAL THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSEL, PAUL BERGRIN, ESQ. AND HIS LAW OFFICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELIEVED AS