Court Opinion

ID: 9911963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 15:06:27.554249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:33.165055
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2742-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARLOS LOPEZ, a/k/a
CARLOS M. LOPEZ,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted September 26, 2023 – Decided December 21, 2023

                   Before Judges Gilson and DeAlmeida.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 13-04-
                   0511.

                   Carlos Lopez, appellant pro se.

                   Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
                   attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II,
                   Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Carlos Lopez appeals from the March 3, 2022 order of the Law

Division denying his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) as

untimely and his application for appointment of counsel. We affirm.

                                        I.

      The following facts are derived from the record. In 2014, a jury convicted

defendant of first-degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; second-degree

possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); third-

degree theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a); third-degree terroristic

threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b); and fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A.

2C:12-1(b)(3). In a separate trial that immediately followed, the jury convicted

defendant of second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A.

2C:39-7(b)(1).

      On the armed robbery conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to a

twenty-year term of incarceration, with an eighty-five-percent period of parole

ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The

remaining convictions relating to the robbery were merged into the armed

robbery conviction. The trial court also sentenced defendant to a consecutive

seven-year term of incarceration, with a five-year period of parole ineligibility,

on the certain persons offense.

                                                                            A-2742-21
                                        2
       Defendant's convictions arose from the armed robbery of a gas station

attendant in Highland Park. At trial, the victim testified that a man in a gray

hooded sweatshirt and black jacket approached the station on foot, pointed a gun

at his head, and demanded money.         After taking approximately $800, the

gunman fled toward Woodbridge Avenue. During the robbery, the victim tried

to touch the gun, causing a plastic piece to fall off the weapon. The following

day, the victim told a detective he could easily identify the robber bec ause he

had come to the gas station to try to sell him a bicycle three days earlier.

       In addition, the victim reported that the robber had previously attempted

to sell him raincoats or ponchos from a green Dodge minivan. The detective

who was interviewing the victim recalled that a year earlier he encountered

defendant with a box of raincoats in the back of a green Dodge minivan. Three

days after the robbery, the victim identified defendant from a photo array.

       The following day, officers arrested defendant at his home. During the

arrest, the officers saw, but did not seize, a gray hooded sweatshirt that matched

the description the victim had given of the suspect's clothing. After waiving his

Miranda1 rights, defendant initially denied knowing the gas station in question,

but eventually admitted that the gas station was near a Bank of America branch

1
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
                                                                               A-2742-21
                                         3
he used frequently, that he sold raincoats out of his minivan at gas stations, and

that he tried to sell a bicycle to the attendant about a week before the robbery.

He stated he was at home with his wife and cousin on the night of the robbery.

      During a subsequent search of defendant's home, police seized the gray

hooded sweatshirt, as well as a black jacket matching the victim's description of

the robber's clothing. In addition, officers found two handguns, one with a

broken piece of plastic, and a stun gun in a closet belonging to Ralph Cruz, a

friend of defendant's wife, with whom the couple lived. Cruz testified that on

the night of the robbery he drove defendant, who was wearing a gray hooded

sweatshirt, to a pharmacy a few blocks from the gas station. According to Cruz,

after defendant completed his purchase, he returned to the car. As Cruz drove

to a convenience store, defendant asked him to turn onto a side street near the

gas station and park. Defendant left the car, said he "would be right back," and

headed on foot toward Woodbridge Avenue in the direction of the gas station.

Six minutes later, defendant returned and said he had "just robbed a gas station."

While Cruz did not see a gun in defendant's possession, he noticed "something

was bothering" defendant in the area of his waist.

      At trial, Cruz identified defendant in a video recording captured by a

surveillance camera at the pharmacy about twenty minutes prior to the robbery.

                                                                            A-2742-21
                                        4
Defendant was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt. In addition, a surveillance

recording from the Bank of America branch showed someone fitting the

suspect's description running from the gas station toward Woodbridge Aven ue.

      On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. State

v. Lopez, No. A-4552-14 (App. Div. Apr. 11, 2017). The Supreme Court denied

defendant's petition for certification. State v. Lopez, 233 N.J. 111 (2017).

      Defendant subsequently filed a PCR petition alleging he received

ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. He argued his attorney failed to

investigate defendant's wife as an alibi witness. In a certification attached to the

petition, defendant's wife attested that she was at work on the night of the

robbery and made numerous phone calls to the landline at the couple's house.

She certified that she spoke with defendant on the landline "at various times

throughout the afternoon and into the evening." She also certified th at had she

been called as a witness she would have testified the couple regularly paid their

bills, even though defendant had been out of work for several months at the time

of the robbery. Defendant submitted a nearly identical certification. Both

defendant and his wife certified that trial counsel advised them the proposed

alibi testimony was not strong and should not be used at trial.

                                                                              A-2742-21
                                         5
      On December 14, 2018, the trial court issued an order denying defendant's

first PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed the trial court's

decision. State v. Lopez, No. A-2838-18 (App. Div. Oct. 15, 2020). The

Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. 245 N.J. 58 (2021).

      On March 2, 2021, defendant filed a second PCR petition in the Law

Division.   He alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) "breaching

attorney[-]client confidentiality by informing the court on" defendant; (2)

"telling [defendant] that he was getting a mistrial that never came to fruition[;]"

(3) "putting himself in [the] position of becoming a potential State's witness

against" defendant; and (4) "telling the court that he wanted to be relieved from

representation of [defendant] and not continuing to zealously represent

[defendant's] best interest, when the court prejudicially tainted and tampered

with the individual jurors during its[] voir dire." In addition, defendant alleged

that his first PCR counsel was ineffective for not raising these claims in his first

PCR petition. Defendant also alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to request DNA testing on the gun found in Cruz's room and for not

presenting as a witness an investigator to whom defendant alleges the victim

admitted not touching the gun during the robbery. Defendant moved for the

appointment of second PCR counsel.

                                                                              A-2742-21
                                         6
      In support of his allegations, defendant alleged that during his trial he had

a conversation with his counsel, which his counsel subsequently revealed to the

court. In addition, defendant alleged that his counsel informed him that as a

result of the disclosure the court would declare a mistrial. Defendant's petition

cited the following passage from the trial court transcript:

            The Court: Before we broke you indicated that you had
            confidence in your lawyer, that he was doing a good job
            for you. And I will tell you, Mr. Lopez, he is doing a
            good job for you. He's a very competent lawyer. But
            he also has an absolute ethical obligation to be candid
            with the court. So, don't blame him for what he has
            done. He's doing what he must do legally. Do you
            understand that?

            Defendant: [Y]es, Sir.

            The Court: He's reported to the court . . . there was a
            conversation in which you intimated, or indicated that
            in fact there was some other person who was going to
            have somebody reach out for one of the jurors. Do you
            understand that? That is a crime. And I'm sure your
            lawyer has told you, don't talk about it, follow your
            lawyer's advice.

            There are several different things we can do. First I'm
            going to ask each and every individual juror if in fact
            anybody has approached them to talk to them. And I
            suspect they are going to say no. I'm going to say good,
            please, don't infer anything from this conversation,
            thank you very much, please come back tomorrow. Go
            back in and then come back tomorrow. And then we're
            going to finish this case, okay?

                                                                             A-2742-21
                                        7
            Because I don't think you can benefit, by the way,
            [from] a mistrial by causing it yourself.

      The court thereafter questioned each of the jurors. When questioning juror

number 1, the court stated "I've been asked to make an inquiry, so I'm going to

do that" before asking if the juror had been contacted by anyone outside of the

court. The court did not make a similar remark to any of the remaining jurors,

stating instead something to the effect of what the court said to juror number 2:

"[o]n occasion, we ask this question just to make sure everything is okay."

      The next day, defendant's counsel moved to be relieved as counsel. He

stated that he was "in a position in which the prosecutor is at least leaving open

the possibility of me being a witness in a future criminal case against" defendant ,

which he described as "an unresolvable conflict." The attorney also stated he

was uncomfortable with having been ethically compelled to reveal his

conversation with defendant. The court denied the motion.

      After defendant's conviction, he obtained new counsel. In support of a

motion for a new trial, defendant's new counsel argued that the trial court's voir

dire of the jurors inquiring whether anyone had contacted them was prejudicial

and reversible error. Counsel argued that the court tainted juror number 1 by

suggesting that defendant had done something inappropriate, which caused the

court to make an inquiry of the juror. In support of this position, counsel argued

                                                                              A-2742-21
                                         8
that the trial court implicitly acknowledged its mistake when it changed its

questioning for the remaining jurors. The trial court denied that motion.

      Defendant alleged that his first trial counsel was ineffective for revealing

his conversation with defendant to the court and for not representing his interests

during the voir dire of the jurors. In addition, he alleged that his first PCR

counsel was ineffective for not raising these issues in his first PCR petition.

      On March 3, 2022, the trial court issued a written opinion dismissing

defendant's second PCR petition. The court found that defendant's second PCR

petition was untimely because it satisfied none of the factors set forth in Rule

3:22-12(b).   The court found that the petition: (1) did not raise a newly

recognized constitutional right; (2) was not based on evidence that could not

have been discovered earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence ; and

(3) was not filed within a year of the denial of defendant's first PCR petition.2

See R. 3:22-12(2)(A) to (C). The court noted that relaxation of the time limit

for filing a second PCR petition is prohibited by the court rule. As a result of

its conclusions with respect to the timeliness of the petition, the court also

2
  The trial court's opinion states that defendant's second petition was filed more
than three years after the denial of his first petition. The record establishes,
however, that the second petition was filed on March 2, 2021, two years and
three months after the December 14, 2018 dismissal of the first petition.
                                                                             A-2742-21
                                        9
concluded defendant had not demonstrated good cause for the appointment of

counsel. A March 3, 2022 order memorializes the court's decision.

      This appeal follows. Defendant raises the following arguments.

            POINT I

            THE SUPPORTING FACTS OUTLINED IN POINT I,
            AND POIN[T] II OF THIS SUBSEQUENT PETITION
            FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF DEMONSTRATE
            HOW BOTH TRIAL COUNSEL AND FIRST (PCR)
            COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE IN THEIR
            REPRESENTATION OF THIS APPELLANT;
            THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS SIXTH
            AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE
            EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING
            HIS TRIAL, AND POST TRIAL JUDICIAL
            REVIEWS.

            POINT II

            IT WOULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE
            NOT TO RELAX THE PROCEDURAL BAR WHERE
            APPELLANT'S FIRST PCR LAWYER AND HIS
            DIRECT APPEAL LAWYER FAILED TO ARGUE
            THE INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL CLAIMS ON [(SIC)]
            HIS TRIAL LAWYER FOR THE ISSUES HE
            ASSERTS IN HIS SUBSEQUENT PCR.

                                       II.

      We review de novo the trial court's legal conclusion that defendant's

second PCR petition is barred by R. 3:22-4 and R. 3:22-12(a)(2). State v. Harris,

181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004).

                                                                           A-2742-21
                                      10
      Rule 3:22-4(b) provides, in relevant part:

            A second or subsequent petition for post-conviction
            relief shall be dismissed unless:

            (1)    it is timely under R. 3:22-12(a)(2); and

            (2)    it alleges on its face either:

            (A) that the petition relies on a new rule of
            constitutional law, made retroactive to defendant's
            petition by the United States Supreme Court or the
            Supreme Court of New Jersey, that was unavailable
            during the pendency of any prior proceedings; or

            (B) that the factual predicate for the relief sought
            could not have been discovered earlier through the
            exercise of reasonable diligence, and the facts
            underlying the ground for relief, if proven and viewed
            in light of the evidence as a whole, would raise a
            reasonable probability that the relief sought would be
            granted; or

            (C) that the petition alleges a prima facie case of
            ineffective assistance of counsel that represented the
            defendant on the first or subsequent application for
            post-conviction relief.

      Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) provides that "no second or subsequent petition shall

be filed more than one year after the latest of" the following:

            (A) the date on which the constitutional right asserted
            was initially recognized by the United States Supreme
            Court or the Supreme Court of New Jersey, if that right
            has been newly recognized by either of those Courts
            and made retroactive by either of those Courts to cases
            on collateral review; or

                                                                        A-2742-21
                                        11
              (B) the date on which the factual predicate for the
              relief sought was discovered, if that factual predicate
              could not have been discovered earlier through the
              exercise of reasonable diligence; or

              (C) the date of the denial of the first or subsequent
              application for post-conviction relief where ineffective
              assistance of counsel that represented the defendant on
              the first or subsequent application for post-conviction
              relief is being alleged.

"These time limitations shall not be relaxed, except as provided herein." R.

3:22-12(b).

      Defendant does not allege he is entitled to relief based on a newly

recognized constitutional right. His second petition, therefore, does not fall

within subsection (A) of the rule. Nor does defendant allege that his second

petition is based on facts he recently discovered. His second petition, therefore,

does not fall within subsection (B) of the rule.

      Defendant's second petition alleges he was denied the effective assistance

of counsel with respect to his first petition. Subsection (C) of the rule requires

that a second petition alleging such claims must be filed no more than a year

after the date of the denial of the first petition. Defendant's first petition was

denied on December 14, 2018. He did not file his second petition until March

2, 2021, more than two years later.

                                                                            A-2742-21
                                        12
      Defendant mistakenly argues that the one-year period for filing the claims

in the second PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of first PCR counsel

began to run on January 22, 2021, when the Supreme Court denied his petition

for certification of our decision affirming the dismissal of his first petition . The

one-year period, however, began on the day that his first petition was denied by

the trial court. See State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 292 (App. Div. 2018)

(beginning calculation of one-year period on the day that first PCR petition was

denied, even though the defendant filed an appeal with this court and

subsequently filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court).

      As a general rule, the court may not relax the time limit for filing a second

PCR petition.    Id. at 292-94.    Defendant's claim of fundamental injustice,

therefore, does not provide refuge from the denial of his untimely second

petition. Unlike Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)(A), which applies to the filing deadline for

a first PCR petition, Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) does not allow relief from a mandatory

time bar based on fundamental injustice. See Id. at 293-94.

      In addition, the claims alleged by defendant in his second petition are not

the equivalent of the "compelling" constitutional issues before the Court in State

in the Interest of C.K., 233 N.J. 44, 58 (2018). There, the Court made an

exception to the general rule to consider a late-filed second PCR petition that

                                                                              A-2742-21
                                        13
challenged the constitutionality of Megan's Law lifetime registration and

notification requirements on juvenile offenders.        Defendant's second PCR

petition raises ineffective assistance of counsel claims specific to the allegations

made in his first PCR petition.         Defendant's claims are limited to the

performance of his PCR counsel and whether he effectively raised claims

relating to the performance of defendant's trial counsel. Defendant's second

petition raises no compelling constitutional claim of widespread application that

would warrant departure from the time limits established in Rules 3:22-4 and

3:22-12(b).

      Finally, because defendant's untimely petition does not raise "a substantial

issue of fact or law[,]" R. 3:22-6(b), the trial court properly denied his

application for appointment of counsel.

      Affirmed.

                                                                              A-2742-21
                                        14