Court Opinion

ID: 9946136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 15:08:10.200663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.661807
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0599-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDRE DAWSON, a/k/a
ANDRE MARIO DAWSON,
ANDREA DAWSON, and
ANDRE M. DAWSON, III,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Submitted February 5, 2024 – Decided February 29, 2024

                   Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Union County, Accusation No. 19-04-0294.

                   Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Anderson David Harkov, Designated
                   Counsel, on the brief).

                   William A. Daniel, Union County Prosecutor, attorney
                   for respondent (Michele C. Buckley, Assistant
                   Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
       Defendant Andre Dawson appeals from the trial court's August 31, 2022

order and accompanying written opinion denying his petition for post-

conviction relief ("PCR") concerning his 2019 conviction of third-degree

aggravated assault on a bus driver, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(g). We affirm,

substantially for the reasons stated in the PCR judge's written opinion.

       We briefly state the pertinent background. Defendant's conviction arose

out of an investigation showing that on January 28, 2019, he got into an

argument with the driver of a New Jersey Transit bus, and physically assaulted

her.

       The State charged defendant in Accusation No. 19-04-00294 with

committing a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(g).            Thereafter, plea

negotiations ensued between the State and Dawson's defense counsel. Those

negotiations resulted in a plea agreement, which was memorialized on a plea

form signed by defendant, his attorney, and the assistant prosecutor .

       The plea form specified that defendant would plead guilty to the charged

offense, and that, in exchange, the State would dismiss charges of second-degree

robbery and third-degree aggravated assault, which had been charged in a

complaint-warrant separate from the Accusation. The State further agreed to

recommend a prison sentence not to exceed "[eight years] flat."

                                                                           A-0599-22
                                        2
      Defendant appeared at a plea hearing before the trial court on April 11,

2019, and he stated under oath his voluntary assent to the terms of the plea

agreement. He also provided the necessary factual basis for the charged offense.

      On June 7, 2019, defendant appeared for sentencing before a different

judge. During that proceeding, the judge noted on the record that defendant had

other unrelated charges pending against him, and that she had received an

inquiry from defense counsel about "resolving that matter along with this one."

The prosecutor responded that the State was not willing to make a so-called

"global plea offer," or a "package plea" offer, but instead would make a separate

offer on that other matter with a recommendation for "additional jail time."

Defense counsel did not comment on that colloquy, nor did defendant.

      The court sentenced defendant to an eight-year term as a persistent

offender. The sentence was consistent with the plea agreement.

      Defendant appealed his sentence, contending it was excessive. After oral

argument, this court affirmed the sentence by order dated June 30, 2020. See

State v. Andre Dawson, No. A-300-19 (App. Div. June 30, 2020).

      Thereafter, defendant filed an initial PCR petition in January 2021, with

supplemental briefing in September 2021 after being assigned counsel. The

supplemental briefing sought an evidentiary hearing.

                                                                           A-0599-22
                                       3
      Defendant argues his plea counsel was constitutionally ineffective by

allowing him to assent to the plea agreement without negotiating a global

resolution that included the other pending charges. Apparently, those other

charges have resulted in defendant being sentenced to additional prison time

consecutive to the eight years imposed in this case.

      After hearing oral argument on June 30, 2022, Judge Candido Rodriguez

denied defendant's petition and found no need for an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant now appeals from that PCR denial.            He advances the following

argument in his brief:

            POINT I

            THE FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO
            NEGOTIATE A PLEA AGREEMENT THAT
            ENCOMPASSED     ALL    OF   DEFENDANT'S
            PENDING CHARGES, SUBJECTED DEFENDANT
            TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES AND A
            PIECEMEAL SENTENCING PROCESS THAT WAS
            SEVERELY PREJUDICIAL AND DEPRIVED
            DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
            TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

      Elaborating on this point, defendant asserts that "[a]lthough the [S]tate

was not required to make a global plea offer, it is almost routine for prosecutors

to do so in such situations in order to 'wrap up' all pending charges at one time."

He thus contends that "[t]he failure of trial counsel to attempt to negotiate a

                                                                             A-0599-22
                                        4
global plea offer subjected defendant to consecutive sentences and a piecemeal

sentencing process that greatly increased his exposure to an extended period of

incarceration in state prison and [he] was therefore severely prejudic[ed]."

      The State counters that it had no obligation to enter into global plea

negotiations. It maintains defendant knowingly entered into the present plea

agreement for this case, well aware that it was not a global arrangement.

      In evaluating these arguments, we are guided by well established

principles. Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a

person accused of crimes is guaranteed the effective assistance of legal counsel

in his defense.   Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).            To

establish a deprivation of that right, a convicted defendant must satisfy the two-

part test enunciated in Strickland by demonstrating that: (1) counsel's

performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance actually

prejudiced the accused's defense. Id. at 687; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,

58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey).            When

reviewing such claims, courts apply a strong presumption that defense counsel

"rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise

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

                                                                             A-0599-22
                                        5
      The United States Supreme Court has extended these principles to the

representation provided by a criminal defense attorney to an accused in

connection with a plea negotiation. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162-63

(2012); Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012). To prevail, a defendant must

show with "reasonable probability" that the result would have been different had

defendant received proper advice from plea counsel. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 163;

see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) (articulating and applying the

"reasonable probability" test to such settings).

      We concur with the PCR judge that defendant has not presented such a

reasonable probability of a different outcome here. As defendant concedes, the

State had no legal obligation to make a global plea offer. The sentencing judge's

comments explicitly reflect that defense counsel asked about the possibility in

chambers, and the prosecutor made very clear on the record that no such global

offer would be made. Defendant was present in court to hear that colloquy.

      It is pure speculation that the prosecution would have changed its position

if defendant held out and refused to accept a plea offer confined to this

accusation. In addition, we note defendant was a persistent offender with a prior

criminal record. There is no reason to believe, even in hindsight, that the State

was likely to have adopted a more lenient approach and extended a global offer.

                                                                           A-0599-22
                                        6
         Defendant failed to present a prima facie claim of his plea counsel's

ineffectiveness.     Accordingly, the court had no obligation to conduct an

evidentiary hearing. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992) (concluding, if

a prima facie claim is made, an evidentiary hearing on ineffectiveness should be

held).

         To the extent we have not already mentioned them, any remaining

arguments presented by defendant lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in

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

         Affirmed.

                                                                          A-0599-22
                                        7