Court Opinion

ID: 9939952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 15:09:39.707964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:09.172916
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0649-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NAEEM LIVINGSTON,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

                   Submitted February 6, 2024 – Decided February 13, 2024

                   Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 16-02-0456.

                   Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on
                   the brief).

                   Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
                   Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
                   Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
                   Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Naeem Livingston appeals from a Law Division order denying

his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following an evidentiary hearing.

We affirm.

      We set forth the following pertinent facts of this matter in our prior

opinion on defendant's direct appeal of his convictions and sentence:

             While driving a gray Dodge Charger through the streets
             of Newark on September 15, 2015, defendant engaged
             in a running gun battle with the driver of another car.
             A witness called the police and, after an officer located
             the Charger, defendant ignored the officer's signals to
             stop. Defendant eventually crashed the Charger into a
             garbage truck, and a school bus full of children and
             several adults. The driver of the truck suffered
             whiplash. The officer stopped to help the children, and
             observed defendant fleeing the scene.

             The police identified defendant as the driver of the
             Charger by running the license plate number and
             discovering that defendant had recently received a
             traffic ticket while driving the car. The officer who
             pursued defendant was also able to identify defendant
             as the driver of the Charger, and defendant's DNA was
             found on the discharged air bag of the car. In addition,
             defendant's friend, [Erica Darby], testified that
             defendant persuaded her to rent the Charger for him,
             and then to report it as stolen following the crash.
             [Darby] refused to do so.

             [State v. Livingston, No. A-3470-17 (Feb. 27, 2020)
             (slip op. at 3-4), certif. denied, 243 N.J. 272 (2020).]

                                                                         A-0649-22
                                        2
      Based on these facts, a jury convicted defendant of second-degree eluding,

second-degree aggravated assault while eluding, fourth-degree resisting arrest,

and criminal mischief, a disorderly persons offense. Id. at 1. The trial judge

sentenced defendant to an aggregate extended term of fourteen years in prison,

subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Ibid.

      After we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on his direct

appeal (id. at 3), he filed a timely petition for PCR. Among other things,

defendant presented a certification from Darby who, as set forth above, was one

of the witnesses who had testified for the State at trial. Id. at 4.

      In her certification, Darby recanted her trial testimony. She stated that

defendant was the "best friend" of her baby's father. Darby admitted she rented

the Dodge Charger for defendant, but now claimed that he returned it to her

before the events that led to his conviction. Darby said she used the car for a

while but it was then stolen from her neighborhood. Darby said she "called

multiple tow companies" looking for it, but was "afraid to file a police report

because [she] did not have insurance on the car." Darby asserted that she later

learned that defendant "was arrested in connection with the stolen Dodge

Charger."

                                                                          A-0649-22
                                         3
      Darby claimed that two years went by before the prosecutor's office

contacted her shortly before the trial. Darby met with two women, but could not

recall their names. She told them that defendant returned the car to her before

the shooting incident. However, the women did not believe her and "threatened

to charge [her] with the stolen vehicle and the shoot-out."

      Darby concluded her certification by stating:

             I became more terrified and made up the story
             involving [defendant]. The truth is [defendant] never
             told me that the car was stolen and he never asked me
             to report the car stolen. I don't know who stole the car
             and who was involved in the shoot-out. All I know is
             that I had the only set of keys to the car when
             [defendant] returned it to me in early September 2015.

      Relying upon Darby's certification, defendant argued in his PCR petition

that his trial attorney was ineffective because she "failed to illicit testimony

[from] . . . Darby. Ms. Darby would have admitted to the police that she had

lied and [d]efendant never told her to report the car as stolen." He also argued

he was entitled to a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence in Darby's

certification.

      The PCR judge decided to conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to

permit Darby to testify on defendant's behalf. At the beginning of the hearing,

                                                                          A-0649-22
                                        4
the judge asked Darby if she would like to speak to an attorney before testifying.

She replied that she did. The judge then adjourned the hearing.

      On the next hearing date, Darby retracted her certification. She explained

that she had spoken to two attorneys and now wanted to "pull [her] certification."

She indicated she was "refusing to testify" and was "pleading the Fifth[.]"

Defendant called no other witnesses and the hearing concluded.

      The PCR judge rendered a written decision denying defendant's petition.

The judge found that defendant failed to satisfy both prongs of Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which requires a showing that trial

counsel's performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient performance,

the result would have been different.

      The judge noted that Darby repudiated her certification. The judge stated

that "[d]efendant's argument also fails to take into account the other evidence

against him." Besides Darby's testimony at trial, the State presented "DNA

evidence recovered from the deployed airbag in the [Charger that] was linked to

[d]efendant." This evidence demonstrated that defendant was the driver at the

time of the crash. In addition, a police officer who pursued defendant as he ran

away identified him as the driver.

      On appeal, defendant presents the following contention:

                                                                            A-0649-22
                                        5
            THE RECANTATION CERTIFICATION OF ERICA
            DARBY,   A    STATE'S   KEY    WITNESS,
            CONSTITUTED      NEWLY      DISCOVERED
            EVIDENCE     AND     MANDATES     THAT
            DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS BE REVERSED.

      We have considered defendant's argument in light of the record and the

applicable legal principles, and conclude it is without sufficient merit to warrant

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

substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR judge in his written decision

and add the following brief comments.

      To secure a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a

            defendant must show that the evidence is 1) material,
            and not "merely" cumulative, impeaching, or
            contradictory; 2) that the evidence was discovered after
            completion of the trial and was "not discoverable by
            reasonable diligence beforehand"; and 3) that the
            evidence "would probably change the jury's verdict if a
            new trial were granted."

            [State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 187 (2004) (quoting State
            v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981)).]

      All three prongs must be established. "Newly discovered evidence must

be reviewed with a certain degree of circumspection to ensure that it is not the

product of fabrication, and, if credible and material, is of sufficient weight that

it would probably alter the outcome of the verdict in a new trial." Id. at 187-88.

                                                                             A-0649-22
                                        6
      Darby's certification failed to satisfy all three prongs of the Ways test for

a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or the second prong of the

Strickland test.   Darby recanted her own recantation certification at the

evidentiary hearing by "pulling" it from consideration and refusing to testify.

Under these circumstances, Darby's revised account of the events leading up to

the shoot-out is not credible. Therefore, the alleged new evidence would not

have affected the outcome at a new trial. Ways, 180 N.J. at 187.

      Just as significantly, even removing Darby's trial testimony from the

equation would not affect the result in view of the DNA evidence the State

provided directly linking defendant to the Charger at the time of the crash. This

evidence, coupled with the police officer's identification of defendant, was

sufficient to support defendant's convictions. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

      Affirmed.

                                                                             A-0649-22
                                        7