Court Opinion

ID: 9906259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 15:09:09.396762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:12.196013
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3264-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TODD STATHUM,
a/k/a TODD PAESON,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted November 13, 2023 – Decided December 1, 2023

                   Before Judges Gilson and Berdote Byrne.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 14-07-1235.

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

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney
                   for respondent (Lila Bagwell Leonard, Deputy Attorney
                   General, of counsel and on the brief).

                   Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM
      Defendant, Todd Stathum, appeals from an October 21, 2021 order

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing the trial court

erred in failing to provide him with an evidentiary hearing. We affirm for the

reasons expressed in the well-reasoned, fourteen-page, written opinion of the

Honorable Michael A. Guadagno.

                                           I.

      In 2014, a Monmouth County grand jury indicted defendant for two counts

first-degree armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and two counts fourth-

degree possession of an imitation weapon for an unlawful purpose, contrary to

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(e).   The charges related to two separate armed robberies

occurring in the City of Long Branch: one at a Monmouth gas station (the

Monmouth Gas robbery), and another at LaCita grocery store (the LaCita

robbery).

      When defendant was arrested, he admitted he committed both the

Monmouth Gas and the LaCita robberies.           While giving his statement

concerning the two robberies, the police asked defendant about a recent third

robbery, which occurred in Shrewsbury. Every time defendant was asked about

the Shrewsbury robbery, he repeatedly denied his involvement.

                                                                          A-3264-21
                                       2
       After trial, a jury convicted defendant on one count of first-degree armed

robbery and one count of fourth-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful

purpose relating to the LaCita robbery, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict

on the remaining two counts relating to the Monmouth Gas robbery. Facing

retrial, defendant instead pleaded guilty to the remaining two counts and

received an aggregate sentence of twenty years in prison, subject to the No Early

Release Act (NERA). 1 After a direct appeal, defendant was resentenced to

virtually the same sentence on remand. He then filed a PCR petition, asserting

numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

                                            II.

       Defendant argues the PCR court erred in denying him an evidentiary

hearing and improperly found he failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of

ineffective assistance of counsel. As noted by Judge Guadagno, "many of

defendant's claims do not allege ineffective assistance of counsel but rather

challenge trial court rulings (admission of hearsay; admission of evidence that

defendant was suspected in another robbery, used heroin, and owed court fees;

denial of severance motion; barring testimony of witnesses; denial of motion for

a mistrial; admission of a photo array)." We agree. Defendant fails to present

1
    N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
                                                                            A-3264-21
                                        3
a cognizable claim for PCR relief pursuant to Rule 3:22 because he either raised

the same claims in his previous direct appeal or could have raised them in that

appeal.

      With respect to the remaining claims, to establish a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-part 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) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VI); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58

(1987) (adopting the Strickland two-prong test in New Jersey).

      On petitions brought by a defendant who has entered a guilty plea,

defendant satisfies the first Strickland prong if he can demonstrate counsel's

representation fell short of the prevailing norms of the legal community. Padilla

v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366-67 (2010). The defendant proves the second

prong of Strickland by establishing "a reasonable probability" the defendant

"would not have [pleaded] guilty," but for counsel's errors. State v. Gaitan, 209

N.J. 339, 351 (2012) (quoting State v. Nun͂ ez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)).

      Even if unable to obtain immediate relief, a defendant may seek to show

an evidentiary hearing is warranted to develop the factual record in connection

                                                                           A-3264-21
                                       4
with an ineffective assistance claim. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63

(1992). However, the PCR court should grant an evidentiary hearing only

where:   (1) a defendant is able to prove a prima facie case of ineffective

assistance of counsel, (2) there are material issues of disputed fact that must be

resolved with evidence outside of the record, and (3) the hearing is necessary to

resolve the claims for relief. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462; R. 3:22-10(b); see State

v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013).

      Pursuant to Strickland, defendant fails to satisfy his burden to show trial

counsel's performance was deficient or he suffered prejudice. We agree with

Judge Guadagno that trial counsel's consent to the introduction of a sanitized

statement regarding the Shrewsbury robbery cannot provide the basis for an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim because on direct appeal we found no

abuse of discretion in the admission of the statement, and we found no

substantive error occurred as the jury heard defendant consistently deny any

involvement in the Shrewsbury robbery. Moreover, counsel objected to the

evidence at trial. As noted by Judge Guadagno:

            In fact, after initially consenting to the sanitized
            version, trial counsel, apparently following defendant's
            request, objected when the prosecution attempted to
            admit evidence relating to the Shrewsbury robbery.
            Even assuming counsel should not have initially urged
            consent to the sanitized version, there is no showing

                                                                            A-3264-21
                                        5
               that the outcome would have been different or that
               defendant suffered prejudice by counsel's actions.

      Because defendant did not demonstrate a prima facie showing of

ineffective assistance of counsel, Judge Guadagno properly denied defendant an

evidentiary hearing. The judge's findings are sound, and his legal conclusions

are correct.

      Affirmed.

                                                                        A-3264-21
                                       6