Court Opinion

ID: 9950116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:10:55.57861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:51.008464
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0983-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHARLES M. LOWY,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted February 13, 2024 – Decided March 13, 2024

                   Before Judges Whipple and Mayer.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 18-07-0573.

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

                   Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for
                   respondent (Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant
                   Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Charles M. Lowy appeals from the denial of his petition for

post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. He contends he

was entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning his trial counsel's alleged

ineffective assistance. He also argues he is entitled to a new PCR proceeding

because his PCR counsel was ineffective.         Discerning no merit in those

arguments, we affirm largely for the reasons stated by Judge Angelo Servidio in

his written decision of September 29, 2022.

      We rely on the facts outlined in detail in our opinion affirming defendant's

conviction upon direct appeal, State v. Lowy, No. A-0898-19 (App. Div. Feb.

16, 2021) (slip op. at 2-8), and only repeat what is essential to a determination

of the issues raised here.

      Defendant lived in Jersey City and went to a nearby park every day to feed

the pigeons. Defendant was sixty-eight years old, suffered health problems—

including spinal stenosis—and required a cane to walk. Defendant became

embroiled in an argument with a seventy-seven-year-old man in the park and

stabbed him with a knife. Defendant was charged with first-degree murder,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(l) or (a)(2); fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon,

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d); and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful

purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4. Trial commenced on June 25, 2019, and the jury

                                                                            A-0983-22
                                        2
returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts except for the lesser -included

offense of reckless manslaughter. Defendant was sentenced on October 4, 2019.

After analyzing the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge

imposed an eight-year sentence with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility.

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.

      On August 12, 2021, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR, and counsel

was assigned. PCR counsel supplemented defendant's petition to include the

claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call defendant's wife as a

character witness.

      In his written decision, Judge Servidio denied defendant's petition without

an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.

      Defendant raises the following issues on appeal.

            Point One:

            DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED PRIMA FACIE
            CLAIMS FOR [PCR] WHICH ENTITLED HIM TO
            AN EVIDENDTIARY HEARING.

            A.   THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
            REGARDING   CLAIMS    FOR    INEFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY
            HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR [PCR].

            B. TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE
            DEFENSE OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY AT TRIAL

                                                                            A-0983-22
                                        3
            CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
            COUNSEL.

            C.   TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CALL
            DEFENDANT'S WIFE AS A CHARACTER
            WITNESS     CONSTITUTED    INEFFECTIVE
            ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

      When a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, we review the

denial of a PCR petition de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004);

State v. Lawrence, 463 N.J. Super. 518, 522 (App. Div. 2020). A PCR court's

decision to proceed without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Vanness, 474 N.J. Super. 609, 623 (App. Div. 2023) (citing

State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013)).

      To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must

satisfy the two-prong Strickland test: (1) "counsel made errors so serious that

counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the

Sixth Amendment," 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) (adopting the Strickland two-prong test in New Jersey).

      A PCR petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013). Rule 3:22-10(b) provides that a

defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition only if he or

                                                                           A-0983-22
                                       4
she establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, material issues of disputed

fact cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record, and an evidentiary

hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief. Id. at 354 (quoting R. 3:22-

10(b)). The PCR court should grant an evidentiary hearing "if a defendant has

presented a prima facie claim in support of [PCR]." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.

451, 462 (1992).

      Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective in providing him

assistance at trial. His chief contention is that his attorney failed to assert a

diminished capacity defense based on defendant's alleged bipolar diagnosis and

treatment. Additionally, defendant claims counsel should have called his wife

as a character witness.

      Judge Servidio denied defendant's petition, finding counsel was not

ineffective in failing to assert a diminished capacity defense.          Although

defendant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, there is no evidence in the record

that suggests it affected his cognitive capacity to form the mental state necessary

for the commission of the crime. Nothing in the medical records from the jail

speaks to defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. After reviewing

the record, including medical expert reports, the judge concluded defendant had

been treated for his bipolar condition for twenty years prior to the incident and

                                                                             A-0983-22
                                        5
reported being compliant with his medications two days after. The evidence

demonstrated defendant was "coherent, logical, alert, and fully oriented" prior

to the incident and throughout the trial. Also, the judge noted defendant's

assertion of self-defense and mitigating factor number five1 were inconsistent

with a diminished capacity claim. Thus, the judge determined defendant's trial

counsel was not ineffective based on the evidence presented.

      We also reject defendant's assertion his trial counsel was ineffective in

failing to call defendant's wife as a character witness. Our review uncovers

nothing in the record to support that defendant's wife witnessed any prior

encounters between defendant and the victim. Nor was there a certification

provided by defendant's wife in support of PCR. Moreover, defendant's lawyer

did present a character witness—defendant's best friend—during trial.

      In short, defendant asks us to speculate, and he relies on bald contentions

that are not supported by the record. See State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311-12

(2014) (quoting Porter, 216 N.J. at 355) (noting that a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel will not entitle a PCR petitioner to an evidentiary hearing

where petitioner makes "bald assertions" and does not allege "facts sufficient to

1
 "The victim of the defendant's conduct induced or facilitated its commission."
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(5).
                                                                           A-0983-22
                                       6
demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance"); Porter, 216 N.J. at

355 (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)) (noting that a defendant

is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where allegations of ineffective

assistance of counsel are "'too vague, conclusory, or speculative'" and not

supported by "specific facts and evidence"); State v. Young, 474 N.J. Super.

507, 516 (App. Div. 2023) (explaining that "[b]ald assertions are insufficient to

establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel").

      To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, we

are satisfied they are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-0983-22
                                        7