Court Opinion

ID: 9941314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 15:16:00.383436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:31.534541
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                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3124-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HITEN A. PATEL,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted October 24, 2023 – Decided February 16, 2024

                   Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos. 13-04-1262
                   and 13-08-2190.

                   Hiten A. Patel, appellant pro se.

                   William Edward Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor,
                   attorney for respondent (Mario Christopher Formica,
                   Chief Counsel to the Prosecutor, of counsel; Linda
                   Anne Shashoua, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Hiten A. Patel was convicted of numerous offenses stemming

from a series of sexual assaults, terroristic threats, and criminal restraints on

seven women in Atlantic City. State v. Patel, No. A-3824-14 (App. Div. Jan.

18, 2017) (slip op. at 2-3). Defendant's modus operandi in committing the

offenses involved soliciting the women, some of whom were prostitutes, for sex,

brandishing a toy gun, and, at times, impersonating a police officer. Id. at 5-15.

He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of forty-six years, with forty-five

years subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Id. at 2. The

conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at 40.

      On June 7, 2019, defendant's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition

alleging ineffectiveness of counsel was denied by the PCR Judge, who also was

the trial judge, following a two-day evidentiary hearing. The judge detailed his

reasons in a ninety-three-page letter opinion. We denied defendant's appeal.

State v. Patel, No. A-4877-18 (App. Div. May 12, 2021) (slip op. at 2, 7-8).

While defendant's petition for certification was pending and before it was

eventually denied, State v. Patel, 249 N.J. 106 (2021), defendant filed a second

PCR petition again alleging ineffectiveness of counsel, which also was denied

                                                                            A-3124-21
                                        2
by the same PCR judge in a May 13, 2022 order,1 for reasons explained in a

thirty-six-page letter opinion.

       Before the second PCR petition was denied, a self-represented defendant

filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, repeating an

earlier assertion that the State committed a Brady2 violation by not disclosing

the complete criminal history of the sexual assault victims-witnesses. In a May

23, 2022 order, the PCR judge denied the motion, reasoning:

             [T]hat the issue concerning the criminal histories of
             witnesses and victims was raised and addressed at trial,
             on direct appeal and by your first petition for [PCR].
             Specifically, these issues were argued in your first
             petition for PCR and your motion for a new
             trial/judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.
             The [June 7, 2019] letter [opinion] regarding your first
             petition for PCR . . . discussed the argument pertaining
             to the criminal histories of all victims and found (1) the
             argument to be baseless and (2) that trial counsel was
             not deficient under the Strickland/Fritz [3] test for
             ineffective assistance of counsel. The letter [opinion]
             regarding your motion for a new trial/judgment of

1
 This order is not the subject of this appeal, nor any other appeal pending before
our court.
2
    Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3
  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 683 (1984) (to demonstrate
ineffectiveness of counsel, "[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's
performance was deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense."), adopted in State v. Fritz, 105
N.J. 42, 58 (1987).
                                                                            A-3124-21
                                         3
     acquittal notwithstanding the verdict dated January 9,
     2014, additionally discussed the cross-examination of
     the victims and noted that many of these women were
     cross-examined on their convictions, their history of
     substance abuse and other anti-social behavior.

Defendant appeals arguing:

     POINT I

     THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
     DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED
     UPON    NEWLY[-]DISCOVERED     EVIDENCE,
     BRADY     DUE     PROCESS     DISCOVERY
     VIOLATIONS AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
     OF COUNSEL ON HIS FIRST [PCR] PETITION
     WITHOUT    AFFORDING    DEFENDANT    AN
     EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS
     HIS CONTENTION THAT PCR COUNSEL'S
     FAILURE TO RAISE THE POST-CONVICTION
     DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL
     RECORDS    OF   THE   STATE'S   PRIMARY
     WITNESSES AGAINST [HIM] DENIED HIM
     ADEQUATE      LEGAL     REPRESENTATION
     WARRANTING       REVERSAL     OF     HIS
     CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL.

           A. There Was No Strategical Reason For PCR
           Counsel's Failure To Raise The Brady Violation
           Claim On The First PCR Petition.

     POINT II

     NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REVEAL[S]
     THE STATE WITHHELD, SUPPRESSED AND
     FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
     HISTORY OF ITS TESTIFYING WITNESSES.
     THUS, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS DUE

                                                              A-3124-21
                               4
            PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER
            BRADY [AND] ITS PROGENY AND RULE 3:13-3
            WARRANTING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S
            CONVICTIONS AND NEW TRIAL.

                  A. The Deliberate Suppression, Withholding And
                  Non-Disclosure Of Evidence By The State Was
                  A Distinct Pattern Of Misconduct By The State
                  Prosecutor.

      Having considered the arguments, the record, and applicable law, we

conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by

PCR judge in his well-reasoned written decision. We add the following brief

remarks.

      There is no reason to disturb the judge's order because it was not "a

miscarriage of justice under the law." State v. Armour, 446 N.J. Super. 295, 305

(App. Div. 2016) (quoting R. 2:10-1). A defendant is permitted to seek a new

trial based on newly discovered evidence at any time. State v. Szemple, 247

N.J. 82, 99 (2021) (citing R. 3:20-2). But here, no new evidence was presented

to support a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we do not consider the three-

prong test that must be satisfied to warrant a new trial based upon newly

discovered evidence. See State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div.

2020) ("[T]o qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new

                                                                          A-3124-21
                                       5
trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely

cumulative or impeaching or contradictory; (2) discovered since the trial and not

discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) of the sort that would

probably change the jury's verdict if a new trial were granted." (quoting State v.

Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981))). Furthermore, given the absence of new

evidence, there is no basis for defendant's assertion of a Brady violation: the

State failed to disclose "evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates

due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,

irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S.

at 87. In sum, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant a new

trial. See Armour, 446 N.J. Super. at 306 (citing State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super.

119, 137 (App. Div. 2000)).

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-3124-21
                                        6