Court Opinion

ID: 9925351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 15:08:31.787412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:00.718436
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0227-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KARON ADAMS, a/k/a
KARON RASHEED LIGHTFOOT
ADAMS, KARON LIGHTFOOT
ADAMS, KARON R. LIGHTFOOT,
KARON A. LIGHTFOOT, FORTY
ADAMS, KARON L. ADAMS,
KARON R. ADAMS,
KARONLIGHTFOOT ADAMS,
KARON ADAMSLIGHTFOOT,
FORTY LIGHTFOOT, and
KARON LIGHTFOOT,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

                   Submitted October 18, 2023 – Decided January 19, 2024

                   Before Judges Vernoia and Walcott-Henderson.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 13-03-0573.
            Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
            appellant (Frank J. Pugliese, Designated Counsel, on
            the brief).

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

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Karon Adams appeals from an order denying his post-

conviction relief (PCR) petition without an evidentiary hearing. He argues the

PCR court erred by rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective by

failing to argue defendant's relative age—twenty-three when he committed the

offenses to which he pleaded guilty—and difficult upbringing should have been

considered by the trial court in mitigation of his sentence. Unpersuaded by

defendant's arguments, we affirm.

                                        I.

      A grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with second-

degree conspiracy to commit kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:13-

1(b)(1);   first-degree   kidnapping,   N.J.S.A.   2C:13-1(b)(1);   first-degree

conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and

(2); first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2); first-degree felony

murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); second-degree unlawful possession of a

                                                                          A-0227-22
                                        2
handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and second-degree possession of a weapon for

an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a).

      Defendant later pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement

with the State. Under the agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to an amended

charge of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, first-degree kidnapping, first-

degree conspiracy to commit murder, and second-degree unlawful possession of

a handgun. The State agreed to recommend dismissal of the remaining charges

and that the court impose an aggregate sentence not to exceed twenty-years

subject to the requirements of the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A.

2C:43-7.2.

      At the plea proceeding, defendant testified that he and three of his co-

defendants traveled by car from Newark to Jersey City and kidnapped the victim

by forcibly placing her in the trunk of their vehicle for the purpose of

transporting her to Newark where she would be "badly hurt or killed." After

defendant and his cohorts transported the victim to Newark, she was taken out

of the trunk and brought into an abandoned house by one of the co-defendants

for the purpose of "shoot[ing] her dead." Defendant testified he knew one of the

co-defendants had a gun and was going "to shoot [the victim] dead."

                                                                          A-0227-22
                                       3
      Defendant admitted he stood outside the house as a "lookout" "to make

sure that no police or anyone else came by while" the co-defendant was in the

house with the victim. Defendant testified his participation in the kidnapping

and murder was "all part of an agreement [he] had made" with the co-defendants.

Defendant admitted he had the ability to exercise control over the handgun the

co-defendant used to shoot the victim and that he exercised constructive

possession of the handgun. Defendant also testified that as he stood outside the

house, he heard gunshots from within it.

      The court accepted defendant's plea and later sentenced defendant in

accordance with the plea agreement. At sentencing, the court noted defendant

was then twenty-eight years old, of good mental health, and had admitted to

prior drug use. The court noted defendant's membership in the Pirus sect of the

Bloods gang, his two adjudications and one deferred disposition as a juvenile,

and his seventeen disorderly persons convictions as an adult.

      The sentencing court found aggravating factors: three, the risk defendant

will commit another offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3); five, there is a substantial

likelihood defendant is involved in organized criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:44 -

1(a)(5); six, the extent of defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness

of the offenses for which he had been convicted, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(6); and

                                                                           A-0227-22
                                       4
nine, the need to deter defendant and others from violating the law, N.J.S.A.

2C:44-1(a)(9). The court did not list any mitigating factors on the judgment of

conviction.

      The court imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty years subject to the

requirements of NERA.1 We affirmed defendant's aggregate sentence on his

direct appeal, State v. Adams, No. A-3302-17 (App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), but

remanded for entry of an amended judgment of conviction merging defendant's

conviction for conspiracy to commit murder with his conviction on the amended

charge of aggravated manslaughter.

      The court later entered an amended judgment of conviction reflecting the

merger, but it did not alter or modify defendant's aggregate twenty-year

sentence. The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification from

our affirmance of his sentence. State v. Adams, 238 N.J. 43 (2019).

      Defendant filed a timely pro se PCR petition, claiming the trial court erred

by failing to consider "mitigating factors during sentencing" and trial counsel

was ineffective by failing to "argue these mitigating factors."        In a brief

1
   The court imposed concurrent twenty-year sentences on the first-degree
kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and aggravated manslaughter
offenses.
                                                                            A-0227-22
                                        5
submitted by his PCR counsel, defendant made the following arguments in

support of his petition:

            POINT I

            THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
            WAS IMPROPER, ILLEGAL, OR OTHERWISE
            UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

            POINT II

            DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE   OF   TRIAL   COUNSEL    IN
            VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEW
            JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS.

            POINT III

            THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS
            COMPLAINED OF RENDERED THE TRIAL
            UNFAIR.

            POINT IV

            DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL.

            POINT V

            AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED WITH
            REGARD    TO   THE    ALLEGATIONS    OF
            DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR].

                                                                  A-0227-22
                                  6
            POINT VI

            [] DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR [PCR] SHOULD
            NOT    BE  BARRED    BY    PROCEDURAL
            CONSIDERATION[].

      Following argument on the petition, the court issued an opinion from the

bench.   The court explained that the kidnapping was captured on a video

recording. The sentencing court described the video in detail, explaining it

showed the victim was "taken from in front of her friend's house in Jersey City,

manhandled across the sidewalk at gunpoint, stuck in the trunk of a car at

gunpoint, [and] hit over the head as she entered it." The sentencing court further

noted the video showed defendant "fetch[] the gun" that a co-defendant placed

to the victim's head during the kidnapping, and that after the victim was placed

in the trunk of the car and driven to Newark, she was "executed"—"shot five

times"—"as discipline for her violation of gang rules." The sentencing court

further detailed defendant's testimony during the plea proceeding describing his

participation in the kidnapping and execution.

      The PCR court, which also presided over defendant's sentencing,

explained that it had considered mitigating factor twelve, the willingness of

defendant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-

1(b)(12) at sentencing, but did not list it on defendant's judgment of conviction

                                                                            A-0227-22
                                        7
based on a concern it would have "adverse collateral consequences" for him

while incarcerated.2 The court further noted it had considered the non-statutory

mitigating factor of defendant's age at the time it imposed sentence, but

acknowledged the "factor was not mentioned" and it "did not make a specific

ruling" as to the factor.

      The court further explained that had defendant's trial counsel argued the

non-statutory factor of defendant's relative youth at sentencing, it would have

rejected the contention due to defendant's juvenile record, the numerous

disorderly persons convictions defendant had as an adult, and defendant's "gang

affiliation . . . which was intimately affiliated with the motive for the crime[s]"

for which he was sentenced. The court further noted it was aware of "the

cognitive science about the . . . development of the [human] brain," but that

defendant's crimes were "not . . . act[s] of an impetuous . . . youthful folly" and

instead constituted "an orchestrated kidnapping and execution."

      The PCR court also noted appellate counsel on defendant's direct appeal

argued the sentencing court "didn't properly account for" defendant's youth. The

PCR court further explained we had rejected defendant's argument, affirmed his

2
 The PCR court explained that it would amend the JOC to reflect its finding of
mitigating factor twelve in its prior determination of defendant's sentence.
                                                                             A-0227-22
                                        8
sentence, and concluded "the sentence was not manifestly excessive or unduly

punitive and does not constitute an abuse of discretion."

      The PCR court concluded defendant's argument trial counsel was

ineffective by failing to argue at sentencing that the court should find the non-

statutory mitigating factor of defendant's relative youth was barred under Rule

3:22-5. The Rule provides that "[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any

ground for relief" in a PCR petition "is conclusive whether made in the

proceedings resulting in the conviction or in any post-conviction proceeding

brought pursuant to [Rule 3:22] or prior to the adoption thereof, or in any appeal

taken from such proceedings."        R. 3:22-5.    The PCR court determined

defendant's claim the court erred by failing to consider his relative youth at

sentencing had been addressed and rejected by this court on defendant's direct

appeal and, therefore, the claim could not properly support a PCR petition under

Rule 3:22-5.

      The PCR court also considered the merits of defendant's argument that his

sentence was illegal because the trial court had purportedly failed to properly

find and weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court rejected the

contention, finding a court's failure to correctly find and weigh the statutory

factors in its imposition of sentence does not result in an illegal sentence. See

                                                                            A-0227-22
                                        9
State v. Acevedo, 205 N.J. 40, 47 (2011) (explaining an "allegation[] of

improper consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors" does not support

a cognizable illegal-sentence claim in a PCR petition).

      The PCR court also addressed defendant's claim trial counsel was

ineffective by failing to argue at sentencing the court should find the non -

statutory mitigating factor of defendant's relative youth. The court analyzed the

claim under the two-pronged standard established in Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), and adopted as applicable under the New Jersey

Constitution by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), for

assessing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court determined

defendant failed to sustain his burden under the standard and rejected the claim.

      The court entered an order denying defendant's PCR petition without an

evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.

      On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

            POINT I

            DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY
            HEARING AS HE ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE
            CASE THAT SENTENCING COUNSEL'S FAILURE
            TO ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S RELATIVE YOUTH
            AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED THE INSTANT
            OFFENSES AS A NON-STATUTORY MITIGATING
            FACTOR      CONSTITUTES      INEFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE OF SENTENCING COUNSEL.

                                                                           A-0227-22
                                      10
            POINT II

            DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] SHOULD
            NOT   BE   BARRED    BY   PROCEDURAL
            CONSIDERATIONS.

                                       II.

      We review the legal conclusions of a PCR court de novo. State v. Harris,

181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004). The de novo standard of review also applies to mixed

questions of fact and law. Id. at 420. Where an evidentiary hearing has not been

held, it is within our authority "to conduct a de novo review of both the factual

findings and legal conclusions of the PCR court." Id. at 421 (emphasis in

original). We apply these standards here.

      The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,

Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee that a defendant in a

criminal proceeding has the right to the assistance of counsel in his or her

defense. The right to counsel includes "the right to the effective assistance of

counsel." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 541 (2013) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 686).

      In Strickland, the Court established a two-part test as the standard to

determine whether a defendant has been deprived of the effective assistance of

counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; see also Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58. Under the

                                                                           A-0227-22
                                      11
first prong of the Strickland standard, a petitioner must show counsel's

performance was deficient.     Ibid. A petitioner must demonstrate counsel's

handling of the matter "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and

"counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel'

guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 687-88. Under the

standard's second prong, a defendant must "affirmatively prove" "a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different." State v. Gideon, 244 N.J. 538, 551

(2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

      "With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting

ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving his or her

right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J.

339, 350 (2012) (citing State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009); State v.

Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002)). A failure to satisfy either prong of the

Strickland standard requires the denial of a PCR petition. Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 700; Nash, 212 N.J. at 542; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52.

      Defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted when he was

twenty-three years old, and he was sentenced in 2014 when he was twenty-six.

At the time of sentencing, the Legislature had not yet enacted mitigating factor

                                                                           A-0227-22
                                       12
fourteen, which requires that a sentencing court consider that a defendant was

under the age of twenty-six at the time of the commission of the offenses for

which sentence shall be imposed. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14).3 Thus, there was

no statutory mitigating factor based on defendant's relative youth that could have

been properly argued by trial counsel at defendant's 2014 sentencing.

      Prior to defendant's 2014 sentencing, the Supreme Court had explained

that a "defendant's relative youth ordinarily would inure to his [or her] benefit"

in the determination of an appropriate sentence. State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80,

95 (1987); see also State v. Pindale, 249 N.J. Super. 266, 289 (App. Div. 1991)

(explaining youth was "not one of the delineated statutory mitigating

circumstances," but noting the sentencing court's failure to give "consideration

to [the] defendant's youth"); State v. Tanksley, 245 N.J. Super. 390, 397 (App.

Div. 1991) (quoting Dunbar, 108 N.J. at 95) (remanding for resentencing a

seventeen-year-old defendant on an aggravated manslaughter conviction and

noting the defendant's relative youth should "inure to his benefit" at

resentencing). As such, when the court imposed defendant's sentence, there was

3
    In 2020, the legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) to add statutory
mitigating factor fourteen—"[t]he defendant was under [twenty-six] years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense." L. 2020, c. 110, § 1 (eff. Oct. 19,
2020). In State v. Lane, 251 N.J. 84, 87 (2022), the Court held mitigating factor
fourteen applies only to sentences imposed on or after the date of its enactment.
                                                                            A-0227-22
                                       13
well-established precedent supporting an argument that his relative youth should

"inure to his benefit" in the sentencing calculus. Dunbar, 108 N.J. at 95; see

also State v. Rivera, 249 N.J. 285, 301 (2021) (summarizing precedent

establishing "the importance of considering youth in making sentencing

decisions").

         Defendant correctly notes trial counsel did not argue at sentencing that

defendant's relative youth should be considered by the court in mitigation of his

sentence. He claims trial counsel was ineffective by failing to urge the court to

consider his relative youth at sentencing and the PCR court erred by finding he

had not satisfied his burden under the Strickland standard based on counsel's

error.

         "Although a demonstration of prejudice constitutes the second part of the

Strickland analysis, courts are permitted leeway to choose to examine first

whether a defendant has been prejudiced, and if not, to dismiss the claim without

determining whether counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient ."

Gaitan, 209 N.J. at 350 (citation omitted). Here, based on our review of the

record, we are convinced the court correctly denied defendant's PCR petition

because he did not satisfy the "second, and far more difficult prong of the"

Strickland standard, Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550; that is, defendant failed to

                                                                            A-0227-22
                                        14
affirmatively demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's

alleged error, the result of his sentencing proceeding would have been different,

id. at 550-51; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

      As the PCR court—which, as noted was also the sentencing court—

explained, even if trial counsel had argued defendant's relative youth in

mitigation of sentence, that non-statutory mitigating factor would not have

changed the sentence imposed.       The court explained that defendant's prior

juvenile and adult criminal history, his participation in organized criminal

activity, the premediated kidnapping and execution of the victim, the need to

deter defendant and others from violating the law, and the risk defendant would

commit another offense so outweighed any reasonable reliance on defendant's

relative youth as a non-statutory mitigating factor that there is no probability

defendant's sentence would have been different if his counsel had argued his

relative youth should also be considered as a factor in sentencing.         More

importantly, however, defendant made and makes no affirmative showing that

had his counsel argued his relative youth in mitigation of his sentence, there is

a reasonable probability the outcome of his sentencing proceeding would have

been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550-51.

                                                                            A-0227-22
                                       15
      Additionally, the court was aware of defendant's age at the time he

committed the very serious offenses for which he was convicted. The court

noted defendant's age—twenty-six—at the time of sentencing, knew that the

crimes were committed three years earlier, and therefore was fully aware of

defendant's age—twenty-three—when he committed the offenses.            And, on

defendant's direct appeal, we rejected defendant's claim the sentencing court

erred by failing to consider his relative youth as a non-statutory mitigating

factor, concluding his sentence was not unfair, excessive, or an abuse of

discretion.   Stated differently, we determined that based on the other

circumstances presented by defendant at sentencing, the court's failure to

consider defendant's relative youth was of no moment.

      Thus, on the record presented, defendant failed to sustain his burden of

demonstrating prejudice under Strickland's second prong and, for that reason

alone, his PCR claim his counsel was ineffective at sentencing fails. Strickland,

466 U.S. at 700; Gaitan, 209 N.J. at 350.

      Because we are convinced defendant failed to sustain his burden under

Strickland's second prong, it is unnecessary to address his claim trial counsel's

performance was deficient under Strickland's first prong by failing to argue

defendant's relative youth should be considered as a non-statutory mitigating

                                                                           A-0227-22
                                      16
factor at sentencing. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700 (explaining a failure to

satisfy either prong of the standard requires the denial of a PCR petition); Nash,

212 N.J. at 543 (explaining a defendant must satisfy both prongs of the

Strickland standard to obtain PCR on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

We note only that in State v. Hess, the Court held that a failure to "present

mitigating evidence or argue for mitigating factors" at sentencing constitutes

deficient performance under Strickland's first prong where "the sentencing court

was deprived of information and arguments that might well have led it to impose

a lesser term," 207 N.J. 123, 154 (2011). For the reasons we have explained,

defendant has not made that showing here.

      In sum, defendant failed to sustain his burden of establishing a prima facie

case of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard.4 We

therefore affirm the court's order denying his PCR petition and find it

4
   Defendant challenges only the PCR court's determinations that he failed to
sustain his burden of establishing a prima facie claim his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance at sentencing and that the claim is also barred under Rule
3:22-5. Defendant does not argue on appeal the PCR court erred by rejecting
any of the other arguments he presented in support of his petition. We therefore
deem those arguments abandoned. See Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J.
Dep't of L. & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489, 496 n.5 (App. Div. 2011)
(explaining an issue not briefed on appeal is deemed abandoned); see also
Thomas Makuch, LLC v. Twp. of Jackson, 476 N.J. Super. 169, 183 (App. Div.
2023) (finding an issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived).
                                                                            A-0227-22
                                       17
unnecessary to address or decide defendant's additional claim that the court erred

by finding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is barred under Rule 3:22-

5.

      To the extent we have not expressly addressed any arguments addressed

to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel's

representation at sentencing, we find the arguments without sufficient merit to

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

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-0227-22
                                       18