Court Opinion

ID: 9939954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 15:09:41.83238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:09.186431
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2561-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FROYLAN LOPEZ,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted February 6, 2024 – Decided February 13, 2024

                   Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 16-06-0882.

                   Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the
                   brief).

                   Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for
                   respondent (Andrew Frank Guarini, Assistant Prosecutor, on
                   the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Froylan Lopez appeals from a Law Division order denying his

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

      Following a trial, a jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder, third-

degree possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose, and fourth-degree unlawful

possession of a knife. After appropriate mergers, the trial judge sentenced defendant

to forty years in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

      Defendant filed a direct appeal.      We affirmed defendant's conviction and

sentence, and the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Lopez, No. A-4145-

17 (App. Div. Aug. 12, 2019), certif. denied, 240 N.J. 402 (2020).

      Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR. Among other things, defendant

asserted that his trial attorney provided him with ineffective assistance because she

failed to request a jury instruction on passion/provocation manslaughter. Defendant

also argued that his attorney should have called "other people in the area on the night

of th[e] incident" as witnesses at trial. According to defendant, if his attorney had

presented these witnesses, "the jury would have heard that other people in the area

encountered the victim and that the victim was stabbed during one of these other

encounters."

      Following oral argument, the PCR judge rendered a thorough written decision,

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

                                                                            A-2561-21
                                        2
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.

      As to defendant's contention concerning the lack of a passion/provocation

charge, the judge noted that defendant previously

            alleged on direct appeal that the jury should have been
            instructed as such, and the Appellate Division, after
            providing a full analysis of the facts compared to the four
            elements to passion/provocation manslaughter, concluded
            that "there [] was adequate time for defendant to cool off
            . . . the record [did] not 'clearly indicate' that there was
            adequate provocation["] and as such the passion/provocation
            charge was not required.

Because this court had already determined on direct appeal that a passion/provocation

charge was not necessary under the circumstances of this case, the PCR judge

determined that defendant was barred by Rule 3:22-51 from raising this issue again

in a PCR proceeding. 2

1
   Rule 3:22-5 states that "[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground for
relief is conclusive whether made in the proceedings resulting in the conviction or in
any post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to this rule or prior to the adoption
thereof, or in any appeal taken from such proceedings."
2
     We also note that because this court had already determined that a
passion/provocation charge was not required, defendant failed to satisfy the second
Strickland prong. Thus, even if defense counsel had requested this charge at the trial,
the trial court would not have been required to give it because it was not "rationally
based on the evidence." State v. Simms, 369 N.J. Super. 466, 471 (App. Div. 2004).
                                                                            A-2561-21
                                        3
      The judge also rejected defendant's claim that his attorney was ineffective

because she did not call "other people in the area" to testify at the trial. The judge

explained his decision as follows:

            [Defendant] provided no further information regarding these
            "other people" to this [c]ourt in either his brief or oral
            arguments. This [c]ourt does not have affidavits from these
            witnesses, the names of these witnesses, the location of the
            witnesses, or the number of witnesses [defendant] believes
            to exist. [Defendant] even appears unsure as to how many
            "other" altercations there were that day where [the] [v]ictim
            was supposedly stabbed instead. [Defendant] certifies that
            there was "another event" (singular) in the third paragraph
            of his [c]ertification and then states [v]ictim was stabbed
            "during one of these other encounters" (plural) in the
            following paragraph. Lacking any evidence in support of
            these bald assertions, [defendant] has failed to establish a
            prima facie showing that his trial counsel failed in this
            regard.

      On appeal, defendant raises the same arguments he unsuccessfully presented

to the Law Division. Defendant contends:

            POINT 1 – DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN
            EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE HE ESTABLISHED
            A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
            OF COUNSEL IN THE FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL
            TO   REQUEST A      JURY   INSTRUCTION    ON
            PASSION/PROVOCATION MANSLAUGHTER WHEN
            SUCH AN INSTRUCTION WAS CLEARLY SUPPORTED
            BY THE FACTS.

            POINT II – DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN
            EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT TRIAL
            COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO CALL

                                                                            A-2561-21
                                       4
               EYEWITNESSES WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE
               SCENE.

      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 tha t

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 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 judge'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

                                                                             A-2561-21
                                         5
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 at length in the PCR judge's written opinion. We discern no abuse

of discretion in the judge's consideration of the issues, or in his 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 bald

assertions to the contrary.

      Affirmed.

                                                                             A-2561-21
                                        6