Court Opinion

ID: 9929367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 15:09:31.368854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:16.939557
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1091-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ,
a/k/a FREDDIE,
LUIS RODRIGUEZ,
LUIS RODREQUEZ,
LOUIS RODRIGUEZ,
FREDDY RODRIGUEZ,
FREDDIE RODRIGUEZ,
FREDDY RODRIQUEZ,
FREDED RODRIQUEZ,
LUIS A. RODRIQUEZ,
FREDDIE RORIGUEZ, and
FREDDIE CHEO,
________________________

                   Submitted January 18, 2024 – Decided February 2, 2024

                   Before Judges Firko and Vanek.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 11-01-
                   0124.
            Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
            appellant (John Joseph Bannan, Designated Counsel,
            on the brief).

            Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor,
            attorney for respondent (Monica Lucinda Do Outeiro,
            Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Luis Rodriguez appeals from a September 16, 2022 order

denying his subsequent petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an

evidentiary hearing. Defendant contends his trial, appellate, and first PCR

counsel rendered ineffective assistance.        Judge Michael A. Guadagno

thoroughly considered defendant's contentions and issued a comprehensive

written decision, with which we substantially agree. We affirm.

                                        I.

      In January 2011, a Monmouth County grand jury charged defendant with

third-degree burglary, third-degree attempted aggravated criminal sexual

contact, third-degree attempted aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual

assault, third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, third-degree terroristic

threats, third-degree aggravated assault, and third-degree aggravated assault on

a police officer regarding two incidents that occurred on August 14, 2009.

                                                                            A-1091-22
                                        2
      The first incident took place at 2:00 a.m. Defendant entered his neighbor's

apartment in Long Branch and stood near her bed while masturbating. When

the neighbor, who was also an acquaintance, questioned defendant about what

he was doing, he confessed that he loved her. The neighbor escorted defendant

out of her apartment but was unable to immediately call the police because her

cell phone was out of minutes, and she could not leave her son alone in the

apartment.   The next day, the neighbor went to the Long Branch Police

Department, gave a statement to Detective Juan Vasquez, and identified

defendant from a photo lineup.

      The second incident occurred after defendant left the neighbor's apartment

and went to another neighbor's apartment. At 3:30 a.m., twelve-year-old L.O.1

woke up and found defendant inside the bedroom she shared with her ten-year-

old brother T.O. Defendant was laying in L.O.'s bed—the bottom of a bunk

bed—and touched her inner thigh. Defendant put his hand over L.O.'s mouth to

keep her quiet and told her several times that if she did not remain quiet, he

would kill her. T.O. awoke and illuminated the bedroom using a gaming device,

1
  We use initials to protect the confidentiality and identity of the minor victims.
R. 1:38-3(c)(9).
                                                                             A-1091-22
                                        3
which enabled him to see defendant was on his sister's bed and touching her.

Defendant also told T.O. to remain quiet or he would kill him.

      L.O. yelled and her father, F.O., came into the children's bedroom. A fight

ensued between F.O. and defendant resulting in defendant fracturing F.O.'s nose.

F.O. also sprained his ankle during the struggle. L.O. called 9-1-1. Despite his

injuries, F.O. was able to detain defendant until the police arrived. The police

arrested defendant and retrieved his cell phone and a black hat from the

children's bedroom.

      L.O. and T.O. gave statements to Detective Shawn Murphy of the

Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and F.O. provided a statement to

Detective Vasquez four days later because he was hospitalized for the injuries

he sustained. A SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) examination was not

performed on L.O. because the incident occurred during her menstrual cycle ,

and defendant's assault did not involve any type of penetration.

      Defendant provided a statement to the police. He admitted to entering

F.O.'s residence but initially denied entering the children's bedroom. However,

defendant later claimed he entered their bedroom after seeing three black males

enter the apartment. According to defendant, he assumed the men were there to

collect money from F.O. Defendant claimed F.O. started the altercation with

                                                                           A-1091-22
                                       4
him because F.O. thought defendant was one of the intruders and F.O. planted

his cell phone in the children's bedroom.

      Following pre-trial motion practice and the plea-cutoff date, the matter

was marked ready for trial. Defendant petitioned the trial court to enter a guilty

plea after the plea-cutoff date, which was granted. Defendant agreed to plead

guilty to third-degree burglary and second-degree sexual assault in exchange for

an aggregate six-year term of imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act,

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, followed by three years of parole. At the plea allocution

hearing, plea counsel represented to the trial court that he had "gone over . . . all

of the discovery in this matter" with defendant and they had "spent numerous

hours, even today, going through everything to determine what is best for him."

Plea counsel stated to the trial court that defendant "wishes to enter a plea at this

time to the deal that was put on . . . the record by the State."

      During his plea colloquy with the trial court, defendant agreed with his

plea counsel's representations and stated he was "satisfied with the legal advice

[he] received from" his plea counsel. Defendant testified he entered two Long

Branch residences on August 14, 2009, at approximately 2:00 a.m., without

permission, in support of the factual basis supporting his guilty plea with "the

purpose to commit a crime therein." He also admitted touching L.O.'s upper

                                                                               A-1091-22
                                         5
thigh. Defendant testified that his plea was freely and voluntarily made, and he

acknowledged that absent a plea agreement, he faced up to fifteen years in

prison. The trial court noted plea counsel had "done a lot of work in the matter"

since entering the case "over the last number of months."

      At sentencing, defendant indicated he "was looking to withdraw his guilty

plea." However, during a colloquy with the sentencing court, defendant stated

he did not want to vacate his guilty plea and chose to proceed to sentencing.

Prior to sentencing, the assistant prosecutor discussed the victim impact

statement provided by L.O.'s family, which detailed the "fear" the family

continued to have as a result of defendant's conduct. The prosecutor also

reminded the court about the testimony from the first victim given during a

pretrial motion hearing, in which she stated she no longer felt safe in her home,

she installed four deadbolts on her front and back doors, does not leave the

windows open in the summertime, and is afraid when sleeping.

      In addition, the children said they don't like to go outside and are afraid

to walk to school alone.      L.O. indicated she feels embarrassed because

individuals at her school are aware of what took place and ask her how she's

doing.

                                                                           A-1091-22
                                       6
      The sentencing court imposed the sentence contemplated in the plea

agreement, subject to Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, Parole Supervision

for Life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, a no contact order, a psychiatric and drug

evaluation upon release, and the requisite fines. Defendant acknowledged he

could be confined to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel.

Defendant appealed his sentence, which was heard on our Sentencing Oral

Argument calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11. On February 11, 2014, we affirmed

defendant's sentence. State v. Rodriguez, No. A-1470-13 (App. Div. Feb. 11,

2014).

      On February 12, 2016, defendant filed his first pro se PCR petition. PCR

counsel was assigned, and an amended petition and a supporting brief was filed

raising six claims of ineffective assistance by plea and appellate counsel: (1)

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty

plea before sentencing; (2) trial counsel failed to advise defendant of the

consequences of his guilty plea, specifically that he could be civilly committed

after serving his prison sentence; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not having

a Spanish interpreter present during counsel's communications with defendant;

(4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to bring the claims set forth in

the PCR; (5) there was an insufficient factual basis for defendant's guilty plea;

                                                                             A-1091-22
                                        7
and (6) the sentence was illegal because it double counted defendant's prison

sentence and his civil commitment.

      On February 23, 2018, the prior PCR court heard oral argument on

defendant's first PCR petition. On March 2, 2018, the PCR court denied the

petition without an evidentiary hearing, noting the petition was procedurally

barred but the PCR court nonetheless addressed and rejected defendant's

substantive claims. Defendant appealed the denial of his first PCR petition. We

affirmed and concluded defendant failed to present a prima facie case of

ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Rodriguez, No. A-4333-17 (App. Div.

Oct. 11, 2019).

      In our decision, we determined that "[d]efense counsel and the plea judge

both carefully went through the plea and supplemental forms with defendant."

Ibid. In addition, we noted a Spanish interpreter was used during the plea

proceedings and that defendant "advised he had read the forms, counsel had gone

over them with him, and [defendant] told the judge he did not have any questions

specifically as to the condition of civil commitment." Id., slip op. at 6.

      Defendant filed a second PCR and requested appointment of counsel while

his first PCR was pending. On July 24, 2018, the PCR court denied defendant's

                                                                             A-1091-22
                                        8
application for assignment of counsel and dismissed the second petition pursuant

to Rule 3:22-4(b)(2),2 because good cause had not been shown.

2
    The Rule provides:

             (b) Second or Subsequent Petition for [PCR]. A second
             or subsequent petition for [PCR] shall be dismissed
             unless:

             ...

             (2) it alleges on its face either:

             (A) that the petition relies on a new rule of
             constitutional law, made retroactive to defendant's
             petition by the United States Supreme Court or the
             Supreme Court of New Jersey, that was unavailable
             during the pendency of any prior proceedings; or

             (B) that the factual predicate for the relief sought could
             not have been discovered earlier through the exercise
             of reasonable diligence, and the facts underlying the
             ground for relief, if proven and viewed in light of the
             evidence as a whole, would raise a reasonable
             probability that the relief sought would be granted; or

             (C) that the petition alleges a prima facie case of
             ineffective assistance of counsel that represented the
             defendant on the first or subsequent application for
             [PCR].

             [Rule 3:22-4(b)(2).]
                                                                          A-1091-22
                                          9
       Defendant also pursued federal litigation while the first PCR petition was

pending. The United States District Court for New Jersey denied the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 3

       Defendant filed a third pro se PCR petition, which was dismissed on

January 4, 2021, on the basis the claims he asserted had already been

adjudicated.4 On February 25, 2021, defendant then filed his subsequent PCR

petition, which is the subject of this appeal. In his petition, defendant claimed

his plea counsel was ineffective because plea counsel: (1) had failed to inform

him that there was no "victim statement" or a medical report that indicated

trauma to the victim (L.O.); (2) plea counsel did not interview the victim; the

victim's brother and father failed to give statements to the police; and (3) plea

counsel pressured defendant into accepting the guilty plea.

       PCR counsel was assigned and filed a brief, which raised the following

additional points:

             POINT I

             DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
             ASSISTANCE      OF        COUNSEL

3
    Defendant's second writ for habeas corpus was also dismissed.
4
   During the pendency, defendant filed six PCR petitions, which were all
dismissed.
                                                                           A-1091-22
                                       10
CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM BY
THE U.S. AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.

A.    TRIAL   COUNSEL'S    INEFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION DURING THE PRETRIAL
PROCEEDINGS IMPACTED THE PLEA PROCESS
CAUSING     DEFENDANT     SUBSTANTIAL
PREJUDICE.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN
FAILING TO PERSUADE THE COURT TO APPLY
MITIGATING   FACTORS   IN  SENTENCING
DEFENDANT.

C. APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY
FAILING TO RAISE VARIOUS ISSUES ON DIRECT
APPEAL.

POINT II

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
WAS           EXCESSIVE          AND/OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

POINT III

PETITIONER'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED
PROCEDURALLY FROM BEING RAISED IN THIS
PETITION FOR [PCR].

POINT IV

PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE
CASE    SUFFICIENT   TO   REQUIRE    AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

                                            A-1091-22
                   11
            POINT V

            PCR INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE ALL
            ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER IN HIS
            PETITION.

            POINT VI

            THE ERRORS OF COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER
            WERE SO BAD THAT ACTUAL PREJUDICE NEED
            NOT BE SHOWN.

            POINT VII

            THE EFFECT OF THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS IN
            THIS MATTER RENDERED THE RESULT IN
            VIOLATION    OF    PETITIONER'S  SIXTH
            AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL.

      Following oral argument, Judge Guadagno issued a written decision

denying defendant's subsequent PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing.

The judge found all claims of ineffective assistance of first PCR counsel were

procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4(b)(1) because the claims were untimely

under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A). In addition, the judge found all other claims failed

to meet the requirements of Rule 3:22-4(b)(2)(C), as they alleged only the

ineffective assistance of plea and appellate counsel, and not PCR counsel.

      Judge Guadagno noted that by his "count, this represents the ninth time

defendant has sought review of his conviction by state or federal courts." The

judge explained that even if he were to consider defendant's claims of ineffective

                                                                             A-1091-22
                                       12
assistance, "most of them have been previously decided; the others lack merit."

The judge determined defendant's claim that "errors of counsel (presumably plea

counsel) were so bad that actual prejudice need not be shown" was not supported

by the record "or in our jurisprudence."          The judge denied defendant's

subsequent petition as both time-barred and lacking in substantive merit because

defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of trial,

appellate, or PCR counsel. A memorializing order was entered. This appeal

followed.

      Defendant raises the following arguments for our consideration:

            POINT I

            PETITIONER'S      CLAIMS    ARE   NOT
            PROCEDURALLY BARRED FROM BEING RAISED
            IN THIS PETITION FOR [PCR].

            (A) Defendant's Second PCR Petition Is Timely
            Pursuant To R[ule] 3:22-4(b) And R[ule] 3:22-12(a)(2).

            (B) Petitioner's Claims Are Not Barred By R[ule] 3:22-
            5.

            (C) Petitioner's Claims Are Not Barred By R[ule]3:22-
            12.

            POINT II

            BECAUSE             [DEFENDANT]               RECEIVED
            INEFFECTIVE         ASSISTANCE OF           FIRST PCR

                                                                              A-1091-22
                                        13
           COUNSEL, THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
           [DEFENDANT'S] SECOND PETITION FOR PCR.

           (A) Trial And PCR Counsel's Ineffective
           Representation During The Pretrial Proceedings
           Impacted The Plea Process Causing Defendant
           Substantial Prejudice.

           (B) First PCR Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing To
           Raise The Issue That Trial Counsel Was Ineffective In
           Failing To Present To The Court Mitigating Factors In
           Sentencing Or Argue For A Lesser Sentence.

           (C) First PCR Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing To
           Raise The Issue That Appellate Counsel Was
           Ineffective For Failing To Argue That The Trial Court
           Did Not Adequately Weigh Sentencing Factors.

           POINT III

           IN THE ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE THERE ARE
           GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT IN
           DISPUTE, THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
           AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

           (A) Legal Standards Governing [PCR] Evidentiary
           Hearings.

           (B) In The Alternative, [Defendant] Is Entitled To An
           Evidentiary Hearing.

                                    II.

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

181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004) (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). The de novo standard also applies to

                                                                       A-1091-22
                                    14
mixed questions of law and fact. Id. at 420. Where an evidentiary hearing has

not been held, we "conduct a de novo review of both the factual findings and

legal conclusions of the PCR court." Id. at 421. We apply that standard here.

      To establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel,

defendant must satisfy the two-prong test articulated in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which our Supreme Court adopted in

State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). "First, the defendant must show . . . .

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

guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment."         Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 (quoting

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). Defendant must then show counsel's deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. Ibid. To show prejudice, defendant must

establish by "a reasonable probability" that the deficient performance

"materially contributed to defendant's conviction . . . ." Id. at 58.

      PCR is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of habeas corpus. State

v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 49 (1997) (citing State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459

(1992)). It is the vehicle through which a defendant may, after conviction and

sentencing, challenge a judgment of conviction by raising issues that could not

have been raised on direct appeal and, therefore, ensures that a defendant was

                                                                          A-1091-22
                                       15
not unjustly convicted. State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 482 (1997) (citation

omitted).

      Judge Guadagno determined defendant's petition is time-barred under

Rule 3:22-12(b), which provides the time limitations for filing second or

subsequent PCR petitions. Defendant argues his subsequent PCR petition was

timely because it was filed within one year of our decision affirming denial of

his first PCR petition. Defendant contends the issues raised in the PCR petition

under review "are of a constitutional nature," and he has satisfied the exceptions

under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 3:22-4. Defendant also asserts his

ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his first PCR counsel and

appellate counsel is allowed under Rule 3:22-4(b)(2)(C). We are unpersuaded.

      The rules governing PCR petitions are set forth in Rule 3:22. Second or

subsequent PCR petitions must comply with the requirements of Rule 3:22-4(b)

and Rule 3:22-12(a)(2). To avoid dismissal of a second—or subsequent—PCR

petition, as stated, a defendant must present evidence to satisfy one of three

enumerated exceptions: a new rule of law, newly discovered evidence, or

ineffective assistance of prior PCR counsel. R. 3:22-4(b)(2). Defendant simply

makes bald assertions and has not presented any facts in an affidavit or

certification to support his subsequent PCR petition. Even when a defendant's

                                                                            A-1091-22
                                       16
PCR contentions fit within these exceptions, a second or subsequent PCR

petition must be timely filed. R. 3:22-4(b)(1).

      Rule 3:22-12 prescribes the time limitations for PCR. As applicable in

this case, Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(C) provides "no second or subsequent petition

shall be filed more than one year after . . . the date of the denial of the first . . .

application for [PCR]" based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's

subsequent PCR petition was filed more than one year after the denial of his first

PCR application. Defendant was required to file the PCR under review within

one year of March 2, 2018, the date his first PCR was denied, but he did not file

until March 2021, more than three years later.

      Unlike Rule 3:22-4(a), Rule 3:22-4(b) contains no "fundamental injustice"

exception for second or subsequent PCR petitions.             Similarly, there is no

fundamental or manifest injustice exception under Rule 3:22-5, which

establishes prior rulings on appeal are conclusive and precludes reassertion of

litigated issues in a PCR petition.

      Defendant contends the issues raised in the petition under review are of a

constitutional nature, and the allegations of ineffective assistance are "clearly

proper" under Rule 3:22-4(a) (b) and (c). We reject defendant's argument

because he does not articulate any constitutional issues or cite any case law to

                                                                                A-1091-22
                                         17
support his position. Moreover, we reject defendant's assertion that the two

"second or subsequent" PCRs filed within one year of March 2018 satisfies Rule

3:22-4 because the prior PCR court dismissed both petitions for not alleging

grounds upon which a second or subsequent petition can be based under Rule

3:22-4(b)(2), and for not demonstrating good cause under Rule 3:22-4(b)(2).

Judge Guadagno correctly held the dismissal of defendant's non-compliant PCR

filings could not be used as a basis to render the March 2021 petition timely.

      We also reject defendant's arguments because we are satisfied he has not

presented that rare case requiring relief from the procedural limitations imposed

on second or subsequent PCR petitions. Moreover, Judge Guadagno correctly

determined that notwithstanding the untimely filing of defendant's PCR under

review, the allegations set forth therein did not satisfy the second requirement

of Rule 3:22-4(b)(2) and were independently subject to dismissal.

      Defendant failed to establish his subsequent PCR petition was timely and

also failed to establish that the performance of his plea, appellate, and PCR

counsel was substandard, or but for any of the alleged errors, the result would

have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. As a result, he was not

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463; R. 3:22-10(b).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-1091-22
                                      18