Court Opinion

ID: 9954451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:08:28.281006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:17.655214
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0303-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LUIS R. GARCIA, a/k/a
RICO GARCIA, LOUIS LUISITO,
and LOUIS GARCIA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

                   Argued March 19, 2024 – Decided March 26, 2024

                   Before Judges Haas and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Cape May County, Indictment No.
                   13-01-0043.

                   Peter Thomas Blum, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
                   argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer Nicole Sellitti,
                   Public Defender, attorney; Peter Thomas Blum, of
                   counsel and on the briefs).

                   Gretchen Anderson Pickering, Deputy First Assistant
                   Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Jeffrey H.
                   Sutherland, Cape May County Prosecutor, attorney;
            Gretchen Anderson Pickering, of counsel and on the
            brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Luis R. Garcia's notice of appeal states that he is challenging

the Law Division's July 6, 2021 order denying his petition for post-conviction

relief (PCR). In his appellate brief, however, defendant barely mentions that

order or the trial court's comprehensive twenty-nine page written decision

setting forth the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

      Instead, defendant raises three arguments concerning the conduct of the

attorney who represented him at the PCR proceeding. He did not present any of

these arguments to the trial court for consideration. Because the record on

appeal is insufficient to enable this court to review these contentions, we are

constrained to dismiss the appeal and remand the matter for further proceedings.

      We incorporate herein the procedural history and facts set forth in our

decision affirming defendant's convictions 1 for armed robbery, aggravated

1
   Defendant was tried with two co-defendants, Alexander Ruiz-Negron and
Ramon D. Ruiz-Perez, who were also convicted of robbery and other offenses.
Defendant and his co-defendants filed separate appeals, which we consolidated
for purposes of our opinion. State v. Ruiz-Negron, Nos. A-1993-14, A-2903-
14, and A-5473-14 (App. Div. Mar. 10, 2017), certif. denied, 231 N.J. 108
(2017), 231 N.J. 118 (2017), 231 N.J. 120 (2017).

                                                                          A-0303-21
                                        2
assault, and other offenses. 2 In June 2019, defendant filed a pro se petition for

PCR. In one of the point headings for this submission, defendant stated:

            PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE WAS DENIED
            EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND
            APPELLATE COUNSEL . . . DUE TO FACT [SIC]
            THAT THEY BOTH FAILED TO RAISE CLAIMS
            THAT THE FACTUAL BASIS OF PETITIONER[']S
            CONVICTION OF ROBBERY WAS INSUFFICIENT
            TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF ROBBERY OR
            WEAPON OFFENSES.

            [(first alteration in original).]

In another point heading, defendant wrote:

            PETITIONER STATES THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSEL
            WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO PROVIDE
            THE COURT WITH MITIGATING EVIDENCE AS
            OUTLINED IN [N.J.S.A.] 2C:44-1[(b)(11)] . . . TO
            MITIGATE PETITIONER[']S SENTENCE[.]

            [(third alteration in original).]

      Because defendant's sentencing appeal was still pending, the trial court

dismissed the petition without prejudice. Defendant refiled the petition in

September 2019.

2
  We twice remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. On the final
remand, the court imposed an aggregate thirty-five-year extended prison term,
subject to the No Early Release Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
                                                                            A-0303-21
                                          3
      The Office of the Public Defender assigned a PCR attorney to represent

defendant.   The record on appeal contains no information concerning any

discussions between the PCR attorney and defendant.          The PCR attorney

prepared and filed a motion to compel the production of discovery. The PCR

attorney also filed an amended verified petition for PCR and a fifty-nine-page

brief in support of the petition raising numerous arguments on defendant's

behalf.   The brief did not discuss or mention the two point headings that

defendant raised in his initial pro se petition concerning the sufficiency of the

trial evidence and mitigating factor eleven.

      Defendant thereafter filed a new pro se submission. In his supplemental

brief, defendant also did not include a sufficiency of the evidence argument and

did not raise any contention concerning mitigating factor eleven.

      Following oral argument, the trial judge rendered a written decision

denying all of defendant's contentions in the PCR attorney's brief and in

defendant's supplemental brief. This appeal followed.

      On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for the first time:

             POINT I

             [DEFENDANT] SHOULD HAVE NEW PCR
             PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE ASSIGNED COUNSEL
             HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DUE TO HER
             PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF A CO-DEFENDANT

                                                                           A-0303-21
                                        4
             IN THIS CASE. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, VI; N.J.
             CONST. ART. I, PARA 10.

             POINT II

             [DEFENDANT] SHOULD HAVE NEW PCR
             PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE PCR COUNSEL NEVER
             ADVOCATED - - AND THE COURT NEVER
             CONSIDERED - - THE ARGUMENT IN
             [DEFENDANT'S] PRO SE PETITION THAT TRIAL
             AND APPELLATE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE
             FOR FAILING TO ARGUE THE INSUFFICIENCY
             OF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE. U.S. CONST. AMEND.
             VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART. I, PARA. 1, 10.

             POINT III

             THE CHARGES SHOULD BE DISMISSED
             BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WAS
             LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, AND TRIAL AND
             APPELLATE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE IN
             FAILING TO ARGUE THE INSUFFICIENCY. U.S.
             CONST. AMEND. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART. I,
             PARA. 10.

      As defendant concedes, none of these issues were presented to the trial

court by his PCR attorney. "We generally 'decline to consider questions or

issues not properly presented to the trial court . . . unless the questions so raised

on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great

public interest.'" State v. Marroccelli, 448 N.J. Super. 349, 373 (App. Div. 2017)

(quoting State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009)). Neither of these exceptions

                                                                               A-0303-21
                                         5
applies to this case and, therefore, we need not consider defendant's newly-

minted contentions here.

      Even if we could get past this hurdle, however, the record on appeal is

insufficient to enable us to consider defendant's contentions.        In Point I,

defendant argues that his PCR attorney previously represented one of his co-

defendants in a resentencing appeal that was handled on our Excessive Sentence

Oral Argument calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11. See State v. Ruiz-Perez, No.

A-0858-17 (App. Div. Mar. 20, 2018). Defendant argues that there was a

"potential for divided loyalties" because the PCR attorney might have had to

"throw Ruiz-Perez under the bus" in order to assist defendant. Defendant points

to no factual evidence to support this claim. Nevertheless, defendant argues that

because the PCR attorney did not "bring the conflict to the attention of the [PCR]

court and obtain a knowing, on-the-record waiver from [defendant]," the PCR

proceeding was flawed and needs to be re-done.

      However, defendant has not provided a certification from himself or from

his PCR attorney detailing their interactions during the proceedings leadi ng up

to the trial court's July 6, 2021 order. Thus, there is no competent legal evidence

in the record showing what defendant knew about the PCR attorney's prior

                                                                             A-0303-21
                                        6
representation or whether he waived any conflict that may have existed.

Accordingly, we do not have sufficient facts to review defendant's contention.

      For this same reason, we are also unable to consider defendant's argument

in Point II of his brief. There, defendant asserts that the PCR attorney failed to

advance two of the contentions he raised in his original pro se petition and, as a

result, he is entitled to a new PCR proceeding at which his sufficiency of the

evidence and sentencing arguments can be considered. However, he has failed

to provide us with the facts needed to permit review of this assertion.

      Rule 3:22-6(d) requires PCR counsel to "advance all of the legitimate

arguments requested by the defendant that the record will support," and "[i]f

[the] defendant insists upon the assertion of any grounds for relief that counsel

deems to be without merit," then PCR counsel must "list such claims in the

petition . . . or incorporate them by reference." (emphasis added). The rule

requires PCR counsel to "communicate with his client," "investigate the claims,"

and "then . . . 'fashion the most effective arguments possible.'" State v. Hicks,

411 N.J. Super. 370, 375 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1, 18

(2002)). If PCR counsel fails to meet Rule 3:22-6(d)'s requirements, the remedy

is a new PCR proceeding. Id. at 376. Such a new proceeding is predicated

solely on the rule, not on ineffective assistance of counsel. Ibid.

                                                                            A-0303-21
                                        7
      However, we cannot conclude on this record that defendant's PCR

attorney violated Rule 3:22-6(d). Defendant has not provided a certification

detailing his discussions with PCR counsel or stating whether they ever met to

discuss defendant's case. Defendant further failed to provide any competent

evidence that PCR counsel did not otherwise communicate with defendant,

investigate claims, and proffer the most effective arguments, together with the

arguments defendant may have "insisted" on presenting even if they lacked legal

merit. See Hicks, 411 N.J. Super. at 375. We therefore cannot find on this

deficient record that a new PCR proceeding is necessary based on a violation of

Rule 3:22-6(d).

      Finally, in Point III, defendant asks that we consider his insufficiency of

the evidence and sentencing contentions, presumably by exercising our original

jurisdiction under Rule 2:10-5. However, we exercise this authority "only 'with

great frugality and in none but a case free of doubt.'" Bacon v. N.J. State Dep't

of Educ., 443 N.J. Super. 24, 38 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Tomaino v. Burman,

364 N.J. Super. 224, 234-35 (App. Div. 2003)). This is not such a case. The

record is wholly inadequate to allow us to review defendant's newly-raised

claim. And, as we have previously made clear, "our function as an appellate

court is to review the decision of the trial court, not to decide [a matter] tabula

                                                                             A-0303-21
                                        8
rasa.'" Estate of Doerfler v. Federal Ins. Co., 454 N.J. Super. 298, 301-02 (App.

Div. 2018).

      In sum, we are unable to determine the merits of defendant's contentions

based on the record presented. Defendant's claims about the conduct of the PCR

proceedings require consideration of facts outside the record presented to the

PCR court and are supported solely by the arguments of defendant's current

appellant attorney. See State v. Vanness, 474 N.J. Super. 609, 627 (noting the

"resolution of claims against PCR counsel generally involves matters outside

the record" and "under most circumstances, they are better suited for a PCR

petition"); see also State v. Armour, 446 N.J. Super. 295, 317 (App. Div. 2016)

(same).

      Under these circumstances, we are convinced that defendant should have

filed a new PCR petition challenging the proceeding that resulted in the trial

court's July 6, 2021 order, rather than a notice of appeal raising arguments for

the first time in this court based upon an insufficient factual record. To address

this mistake, we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for

consideration of a new petition limited to the three arguments defendant raised

in the present appeal. Defendant shall have sixty days from the date of this

decision to file the new petition.

                                                                            A-0303-21
                                        9
      The appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded for further

proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                               A-0303-21
                                     10