Court Opinion

ID: 9917462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:07:29.38888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:05.064274
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0579-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTOINE DENNIS, a/k/a
ANTOINE DAVIS, ANTHONY
DAVIS, and ANTWON DENNIS,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

                   Submitted January 8, 2024 – Decided January 12, 2024

                   Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
                   06-11-2533.

                   Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on
                   the brief).

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Ashlea De An Newman, Deputy Attorney
                   General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM

      Defendant Antoine Dennis appeals from the denial of his second petition

for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

      In a prior appeal, we detailed the facts involving defendant's participation

in the murder of Saahron Jones and subsequent conviction by a jury of: second-

degree conspiracy to commit armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:15-1; first-

degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-

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

degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); second-degree

possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and second-

degree certain persons not to possess weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). State v.

Dennis, No. A-2956-10 (App. Div. Nov. 29, 2012) (slip op. at 1). We affirmed

defendant's convictions and, except for a remand to address improperly merged

sentences, we also affirmed his sentence, which included life imprisonment

subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a), on the murder count

and consecutive sentences imposed for other offenses. Id. at 2-3.

      In 2013, defendant filed his first PCR petition alleging various claims of

ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel. On March 27, 2015, the

judge who presided over defendant's trial considered his PCR petition and issued

                                                                            A-0579-21
                                        2
a detailed written opinion rejecting his claims. On appeal, defendant argued

there should have been an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed the trial judge's

finding defendant had not demonstrated a prima facie case of ineffective

assistance of counsel to warrant a hearing, and concluded defendant's arguments

lacked merit. State v. Dennis, No. A-5191-14 (App. Div. July 14, 2017) (slip

op. at 6).

      On June 13, 2018, defendant filed his second PCR petition alleging claims

of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including that both failed

to challenge the validity of his arrest warrant. Defendant alleged police obtained

a search warrant for his home by appearing before the trial judge, but the arrest

warrant, which was signed by a detective as the complainant and a sergeant who

administered the oath, did not indicate it was authorized in the presence of a

judge.   Therefore, defendant argued the arrest warrant was "defective and

invalid" because it was not "sworn and subscribed" before a judge, pursuant to

Rule 3:2-3(b).    And, because the arrest warrant was invalid the evidence

obtained by it was inadmissible.

      A second PCR judge heard defendant's petition and issued a written

opinion denying it. He concluded the petition was time-barred pursuant to Rule

3:22-12(a)(2)(A), because defendant's first PCR petition was denied on March

                                                                              A-0579-21
                                         3
27, 2015, and the second petition was filed "on June 13, 2018, over three years

after the denial of his first petition" and well beyond the one-year time-bar

imposed by the Rule. The judge noted Rule 1:3-4(c) prohibits enlargement of

the one-year time limit imposed by Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A). Further, the Supreme

Court held enlargement of the time limits in the Rule "is absolutely prohibited"

and cannot be relaxed under Rule 1:1-2. Aujero v. Cirelli, 110 N.J. 566, 577

(1988).1 Moreover, defendant's second petition was barred because it did not

assert any newly recognized constitutional right or an "ineffectiveness claim . . .

based on evidence or information that could not have been discovered earlier

through the exercise of reasonable diligence."

      Defendant raises the following points on appeal:

            POINT ONE – THE PCR COURT IMPROPERLY
            DENIED DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HE
            RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF HIS
            PLEA COUNSEL WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN
            EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

                   A.  THE      PREVAILING     LEGAL
                   PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS FOR
                   INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,

1
  See also State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 293-94 (App. Div. 2018), for
a detailed discussion of the Supreme Court's adoption of revised Rules in 2009
making clear the one-year time limitation for a second PCR claim, and the
exceptions to the time limitation, which the second PCR judge addressed and
found did not apply here.
                                                                             A-0579-21
                                        4
                  EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND PETITIONS
                  FOR [PCR].

                  B.   THE PCR COURT IMPROPERLY
                  DENIED DEFENDANT'S PETITION ON
                  PROCEDURAL     GROUNDS,   AS  THE
                  TIMEBAR SET FORTH IN [RULE] 3[:]22-
                  12(A)(2) SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELAXED
                  TO     PREVENT   A   FUNDAMENTAL
                  INJUSTICE.

                  C.   THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING
                  DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
                  ON THE CLAIM THAT HIS APPELLATE PCR
                  COUNSEL     WAS   INEFFECTIVE   FOR
                  FAILING TO RAISE THE CLAIM THAT HIS
                  POLICE STATEMENT RESULTED FROM A
                  DEFECTIVE ARREST WARRANT.

                  D.   THE PCR COURT ERRED BY DENYING
                  DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
                  ON THE CLAIM THAT HIS APPELLATE PCR
                  COUNSEL     WAS    INEFFECTIVE  FOR
                  FAILING TO RAISE THE CLAIM THAT PCR
                  COUNSEL     WAS    INEFFECTIVE  FOR
                  FAILING TO ARGUE THAT TRIAL
                  COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE AT THE
                  MOTION     FOR   A    JUDGMENT   OF
                  ACQUITTAL WAS DEFICIENT.

      A PCR petition is neither "a substitute for direct appeal . . . nor an

opportunity to relitigate cases already decided on the merits . . . ." State v.

Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992) (citation omitted). When a petitioner claims

ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, they must show counsel's

                                                                           A-0579-21
                                       5
performance was deficient, and but for those errors, they would not have been

convicted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984); State

v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987). There is a strong presumption counsel "rendered

adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of

reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.

      A defendant is also entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel,

but "appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every

nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant . . . ." State v. Morrison, 215 N.J.

Super. 540, 549 (App. Div. 1987) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983)).

Appellate counsel will not be found ineffective for failure to raise a meritless

issue or errors an appellate court would deem harmless. See State v. Echols,

199 N.J. 344, 361 (2009).

      We conduct a de novo review where a PCR court does not hold an

evidentiary hearing. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). A defendant is

entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they present a prima facie case supporting

PCR, the court determines there are material issues of fact that cannot be

resolved based on the existing record, and the court finds an evidentiary hearing

is required to resolve the claims presented. R. 3:22-10(b); see also State v.

Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013) (citing R. 3:22-10(b)).

                                                                            A-0579-21
                                        6
      Having considered defendant's claims, the record, and applicable legal

principles, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the PCR judge's thorough and

well written opinion. We add the following comments.

      Defendant's claim appellate PCR counsel was ineffective for not

challenging the validity of the arrest warrant ignores the fact the warrant

complied with Rule 3:2-1(a)(1). The Rule provides: "All complaints . . . shall

be by certification or on oath before a judge or other person authorized by

N.J.S.A. 2B:12-21 to take complaints." As we noted, the arrest warrant was

submitted by certification and contained the signatures of the complaining

detective and the sergeant who administered the oath. It is undisputed the trial

judge also signed the warrant. The fact the search warrant was obtained by the

other method permitted under Rule 3:2-1(a)(1), namely, by oath before the judge

rather than certification, did not invalidate the arrest warrant.

      Therefore, appellate PCR counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise

this meritless argument. An evidentiary hearing was not required because there

was no material issue of fact, but a misinterpretation of law on defendant's part;

underscoring that defendant's petition did not assert a basis to override the time

limitation imposed by Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A). The remainder of defendant's

                                                                            A-0579-21
                                         7
arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(2).

      Affirmed.

                                                                        A-0579-21
                                      8