Court Opinion

ID: 9942097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 15:07:37.464924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:41.363623
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0236-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAWN DOOLEY, a/k/a
MALIK GRANT, SHARMON
M. DOOLEY, and
KAREEM BROWN,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Submitted February 13, 2024 – Decided February 20, 2024

                   Before Judges Rose and Perez Friscia.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 16-02-0630.

                   Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Brian F. Plunkett, Designated Counsel, on
                   the brief).

                   Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
                   Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Hannah Faye Kurt,
                   Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
                   Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM

      Defendant Shawn Dooley appeals from a July 25, 2022 order denying his

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant claimed his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance. In a cogent

written decision, Judge Michael L. Ravin – who entered defendant's guilty plea

and imposed sentence – thoroughly analyzed the issues raised in view of the

governing law.

      On appeal, defendant reprises three of the four claims raised before the

PCR judge. In a single point, defendant asserts:

            [DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON HIS
            CLAIM     THAT    COUNSEL     RENDERED
            INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY FAILING TO
            SEEK SUPPRESSION OF KEY EVIDENCE; BY
            FAILING TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF AN
            UNSUPPORTED ATTEMPTED MURDER COUNT;
            AND BY MISINFORMING HIM ABOUT HIS
            SENTENCING EXPOSURE.

      We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the applicable law,

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

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

Judge Ravin in his well-reasoned written decision, adding the following brief

remarks.

                                                                         A-0236-22
                                       2
         A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he "has

presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J.

89, 158 (1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.

451, 462 (1992)), meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable

likelihood that his . . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. For a

defendant to obtain relief based on ineffective assistance grounds, he is obliged

to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's performance was

deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,

58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey) (Strickland/Fritz

test).

         In the present matter, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable

likelihood that his PCR claim will ultimately succeed on the merits and failed

to satisfy either prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. Because there was no prima

facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing was

not necessary to resolve defendant's PCR claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

         Affirmed.

                                                                             A-0236-22
                                        3