Court Opinion

ID: 9901149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 15:07:52.360725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:27.408099
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3678-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DENIS A. CATANIA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

                   Submitted November 14, 2023 – Decided November 21, 2023

                   Before Judges Haas and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 13-03-0859.

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

                   William E. Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor,
                   attorney for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Chief
                   Counsel to the Prosecutor, of counsel; Courtney
                   Cittadini, Section Chief, and Linda A. Shashoua,
                   Assistant Prosecutor, on the briefs).

                   Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM

      Defendant Denis A. Catania appeals from the Law Division's May 17,

2022 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an

evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

      The underlying facts concerning defendant's conviction following a guilty

plea to first-degree aggravated manslaughter are set forth in our prior opinion

on defendant's direct appeal in State v. Catania, No. A-1757-13 (App. Div. Mar.

27, 2017), certif. denied, 230 N.J. 602 (2017), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 2018.

Therefore, those facts will not be repeated here in detail.

      Suffice it to say, the State's proofs indicated that after defendant learned

the victim was having an affair with defendant's girlfriend, defendant lured the

victim to his home. Catania. slip op. at 21-23. When the victim arrived,

defendant rushed out of a back room, brandished a starter pistol, and ordered the

victim to the floor. Id. at 22. The victim made an attempt to fight back, but

defendant's accomplice struck the victim and defendant hit him several times

with the weapon. Ibid. Defendant then choked the victim until he believed he

was dead. Ibid. Defendant wrapped the victim in a sheet, put him in the car the

victim had driven to the home, and drove to another location, where he burned

                                                                            A-3678-21
                                        2
the car and the body.        Id. at 22-23.       It was possible that the victim was

incapacitated but still alive when defendant incinerated him. Id. at 23.

        We affirmed defendant's conviction and his twenty-five-year prison

sentence, which was subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

    Id. at 7. Defendant later filed a timely petition for PCR.

        Among other things, defendant claimed that his trial counsel was

ineffective because he did not advise defendant that he could raise a self-defense

or the defense of another person 1 argument at trial. According to defendant, he

immediately attacked the victim when he entered defendant's home because he

was afraid the victim was going to sexually assault his girlfriend. Had he known

that this could constitute self-defense or defense of another, defendant asserted

he would have insisted on going to trial.

        Defendant's contention was rejected by the trial court, which concluded

that defendant did not satisfy the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which requires a showing that trial counsel's

performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, the result

would have been different. The court stated:

               Based on the applicable law, defendant's counsel was
               not ineffective for failing [to raise] the argument of

1
    The other person in this scenario would have been defendant's girlfriend.
                                                                              A-3678-21
                                             3
      self-defense or defense of others. While defendant
      argues self-defense and defense of others [were]
      appropriate based upon the victim's previous alleged
      sexual harassment encounter with [defendant's
      girlfriend], that is simply not the case. Defendant fails
      to meet the immediacy requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4
      as the sexual harassment encounter between the victim
      and [defendant's girlfriend] had long passed. Instead,
      defendant conspired to lure the victim to the residen[ce]
      for this attack. There is no plausible self-defense or
      defense of others claim that could adequately be raised,
      and counsel cannot be deemed as ineffective for simply
      failing to raise this illogical argument. Counsel was not
      ineffective, instead, counsel acted efficiently and
      effectively under the circumstances.

      Further, defendant was not prejudiced because of
      counsel's actions. Although counsel did not raise the
      defense of self-defense or defense of others, this would
      not ultimately change the results of the case and was
      not [a] cognizable defense under [the] facts of the case.
      Instead, the rule is inapplicable based upon the
      circumstances at hand. Defendant has provided no
      evidence to establish prejudice. Instead, this is merely
      a bald assertion. Counsel cannot be considered
      [in]effective on this basis.

On appeal, defendant raises the following contention:

      THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN
      EVIDENTIARY      HEARING      BECAUSE
      DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE
      CASE      OF    DEFENSE      COUNSEL'S
      INEFFECTIVENESS FOR NOT INFORMING
      DEFENDANT THAT HE COULD INTERPOSE
      SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR THE DEFENSE OF [HIS
      GIRLFRIEND].

                                                                  A-3678-21
                                 4
In addition, defendant raised the following issue in his pro se supplemental brief:

            THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED BACK TO
            THE LOWER COURT FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
            HEARING BECAUSE THE PCR COURT FAILED TO
            PROPERLY ADDRESS THE APPELLANT'S
            INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM
            FOR FAILURE TO HIRE A[] MEDICAL EXPERT TO
            DETERMINE BOTH THE TIME AND CAUSE OF
            DEATH BASED ON THE FOOD CONTENTS
            FOUND IN [THE VICTIM'S] STOMACH.[2]

      When petitioning for PCR, the defendant must establish, by a

preponderance of the credible evidence, that he is entitled to the requested relief.

State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 541 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459

(1992). To sustain that burden, the defendant must allege and articulate specific

facts that "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its decision."

State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579 (1992).

      The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an

evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321

N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999).         Rather, trial courts should grant

2
  Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we are satisfied
that defendant's supplemental contention is clearly without merit and does not
warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

                                                                              A-3678-21
                                         5
evidentiary hearings and make a determination on the merits only if the

defendant has presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance, material

issues of disputed facts lie outside the record, and resolution of the issues

necessitates a hearing. R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013).

We review a trial court's decision to deny a PCR petition without an evidentiary

hearing for abuse of discretion. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

      To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the

defendant 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, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

There is a strong presumption that counsel "rendered adequate assistance and

made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional

judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Further, because prejudice is not

presumed, Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52, the defendant must demonstrate "how specific

errors of counsel undermined the reliability" of the proceeding. United States

v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.26 (1984).

      Having considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the

applicable law, we affirm the denial of defendant's PCR petition substantially

for the reasons detailed in the trial court's written opinion. We discern no abuse

                                                                            A-3678-21
                                        6
of discretion in the court's consideration of the issues, or in its decision to deny

the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We are satisfied that the trial

attorney's performance was not deficient, and defendant provided nothing more

than a bald assertion to the contrary.

      Affirmed.

                                                                              A-3678-21
                                         7