Court Opinion

ID: 9960111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:07:22.4291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:11.317808
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3112-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TROY BUNERO,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________

                   Submitted January 9, 2024 – Decided April 15, 2024

                   Before Judges Sumners and Smith.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 14-02-0010.

                   Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Monique D. Moyse, Designated Counsel, on
                   the brief).

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Adam David Klein, Deputy Attorney
                   General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Troy Bunero, a former supervisor in the North Bergen

Department of Public Works (DPW), was indicted on February 20, 2014, for his

role in a scheme diverting DPW resources for private use. The nine-count

indictment included a count for third-degree theft by unlawful taking or

disposition, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) and 2C:2-6, alleging defendant "knowingly did

unlawfully take or exercise unlawful control over the movable property of

[DPW], including tools, equipment, vehicles, and employee services, including,

but not limited to" by directing DPW employees to "work on one or more

election campaigns" and perform work on defendant's home, his co-defendant's

car, and another DPW supervisor's home, "for which they were paid for regular

or overtime hours by [DPW]."

      Defendant pled not guilty to all counts. At trial, the court indicated it

planned to instruct the jury on theft of services, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8(b), instead of

theft by unlawful taking, pursuant to the theft consolidation statute, N.J.S.A.

2C:20-2(a). A week later,1 the court issued the jury instructions, quoting the

theft of services statute and describing the crime as "theft as a third[-]degree

1
   We briefly stayed the trial, allowing the State to file an emergent motion for
leave to appeal the trial court's order to charge the jury on the affirmative defense
of duress, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-9(a). The State's leave to appeal was granted and the
trial court's order was summarily reversed.
                                                                              A-3112-21
                                         2
offense."   The jury found defendant guilty on all counts, and he was

subsequently sentenced to a five-year prison term. The conviction was affirmed

on direct appeal. State v. Bunero, No. A-2126-15 (App. Div. Apr. 2, 2018),

certif. denied, 235 N.J. 464 (2018). 2

      Following his unsuccessful direct appeal, defendant petitioned for post-

conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition

was denied without an evidentiary hearing on December 5, 2019. We affirmed

in part but remanded for the PCR judge to address defendant's claim that his trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the trial court's

jury instruction on theft of services. State v. Bunero, No. A-1896-19 (App. Div.

May 3, 2021) (slip op. at 11).

      On February 28, 2022, PCR Judge Angelo Servidio, who replaced the

retired initial PCR judge, issued an order denying defendant's claim without an

evidentiary hearing and a written opinion supplementing the initial PCR judge's

decision.   Judge Servidio reasoned the indictment alleged defendant used

township workers' services for private use, giving him sufficient "notice that

theft of services was within the four corners of his [i]ndictment." State v. Talley,

2
  Separately, we reversed a trial court order granting defendant's bail pending
appeal. State v. Bunero, No. A-1848-15 (App. Div. June 21, 2016).
                                                                              A-3112-21
                                         3
94 N.J. 385, 390-93 (1983); Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code Annotated, cmt.

2 on N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2 (2020) (observing "the common unifying conception in

all theft offenses is the 'involuntary transfer of property'" without the owner's

consent). Thus, the theft consolidation statute allowed the trial court "to charge

the jury on theft of services" and trial counsel was not ineffective when trial

counsel failed to oppose this instruction.

      In a single point, defendant argues before us:

            MR. BUNERO IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY
            HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT COUNSEL
            RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY
            FAILING TO OBJECT TO A JURY CHARGE ON
            THEFT OF SERVICES.

      PCR is appropriate when a criminal defendant was substantially denied a

constitutional right, such as the right to effective assistance of counsel. R. 3:22-

2(a); State v. Gideon, 244 N.J. 538, 550 (2021).         To establish ineffective

assistance of counsel, the defendant must show: 1) "counsel's performance was

deficient," and 2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,

58 (1987). The failure to file a meritless motion is not ineffective assistance of

counsel. State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 619 (2007).

                                                                              A-3112-21
                                         4
      An evidentiary hearing is held "only upon the establishment of a prima

facie case in support of post-conviction relief." R. 3:22-10(b). A "prima facie

case" requires a defendant "demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her

claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will

ultimately succeed on the merits," ibid., and must be supported by "specific facts

and evidence supporting his allegations," State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355

(2013). "We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an

evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion." State v. Peoples, 446 N.J. Super.

245, 255 (App. Div. 2016) (citing State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992)).

      Applying these principles, we conclude defendant's contentions lack

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Servidio's thorough and

cogent thirteen-page written decision. We add these brief remarks.

      The theft consolidation statute provides, in pertinent part:

            Conduct denominated theft . . . constitutes a single
            offense . . . . A charge of theft . . . may be supported
            by evidence that it was committed in any manner that
            would be theft . . . under this chapter, notwithstanding
            the specification of a different manner in the indictment
            . . . [unless] the defense would be prejudiced by lack of
            fair notice or by surprise.

            [N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(a) (emphasis added).]

                                                                             A-3112-21
                                        5
        Considering the charges against defendant, the statute allowed the trial

court to instruct the jury on theft of services. The indictment alleged defendant

had DPW employees renovate homes, repaint his co-defendant's car, and work

on external election campaigns, all at DPW's expense. Theft of services requires

showing the defendant, "having control over the disposition of services of

another, to which he is not entitled, . . . knowingly divert[ed] such services to

his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto." N.J.S.A. 2C:20-

8(b).    Because "defendant was provided with adequate notice of the charges"

that were ultimately given to the jury, State v. Dorn, 233 N.J. 81, 96 (2018),

there is no merit to his claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to

the trial court's theft of services jury instruction. In failing to make a prima facie

showing of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, defendant was

not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

        Affirmed.

                                                                               A-3112-21
                                          6