Court Opinion

ID: 9948967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:16:55.748283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.063653
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1720-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

         Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PATRICK M. LATKO,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________

                   Submitted February 26, 2024 – Decided March 8, 2024

                   Before Judges Marczyk and Chase.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No.
                   12-05-1312.

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

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Boris Moczula, Deputy Attorney General,
                   of counsel and on the briefs).

                   Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM

      Defendant Patrick Latko appeals from the Law Division's November 18,

2022 order denying his second petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR")

without an evidentiary hearing.      We affirm substantially for the reasons

expressed by Judge Pamela D'Arcy, J.S.C., in her detailed written decision.

                                        I.

      We incorporate the facts leading to defendant's conviction and sentence

from our decision on defendant's direct appeal, State v. Latko, No. A-1165-13,

(App. Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (slip op. at 1), certif. denied, 228 N.J. 480 (2017),

where we affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of first-degree murder

and sentence to two consecutive life sentences for the fatal stabbing of a friend

of "defendant's former girlfriend" and that individual's mother. In rejecting his

appeal, we noted that "[t]he evidence of defendant's guilt was substantial." Ibid.

      After defendant's petition for certification was denied, he filed his first

PCR petition, which included claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel .

This petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing.        He subsequently

appealed, and we affirmed the PCR court. State v. Latko, No. A-3395-18 (App.

Div. May 15, 2020), certif. denied, 244 N.J. 160 (2020). Within two months of

the denial of certification, defendant filed his second PCR petition, which was

                                                                           A-1720-22
                                        2
also denied and is the basis for this appeal. The facts underlying defendant's

conviction are detailed in those previous opinions and need not be repeated in

their entirety.   Rather, we briefly recount the facts relevant to defendant's

petition.

      The State established at trial that on November 3, 2011, at 5:23 a.m.,

Hammonton Township Police officers received a dispatch stating a male caller

reported he and his mother had been stabbed. The victim mentioned defendant

by name during the 9-1-1 call. The police arrived to find two victims who had

various wounds and could not be saved. Defendant's cell phone was recovered

at the murder scene. The autopsies revealed that both victims had numerous

stab wounds on the front, back and sides of their upper torsos, a deep slash

wound to each of their necks, and defensive wounds. The medical examiner

concluded they had died from the stab wounds.

      Defendant had borrowed a friend's car in the days leading up to the

murders. His friend testified that when defendant returned the car on the day of

the murder, he took the floor mats with him and did not answer when asked why

he removed them.

                                                                         A-1720-22
                                       3
        Defendant had storage lockers at a nearby facility. A search of the lockers

revealed a sheath for a knife that had "Snap-on" written on one side and a crack

on the other side. The knife itself was not found at that time.

        At the officers' request, the manager of the storage facility produced the

activity log and video surveillance from November 3. All entries and exits into

the facility itself and individual units were recorded and time stamped. The log

revealed defendant was at the storage facility on the morning of the murders,

shortly after the police reached the victims' home. Defendant entered the facility

at 6:00 a.m., opened a unit at 6:01 a.m., closed the unit at 6:13 a.m., and left at

6:14 a.m. The surveillance video recorded activities that corresponded to the

log and showed an individual entered the gate at 6:00 a.m., opened defendant's

unit, and entered the unit for a short period of time. The individual came out

wearing different clothes and holding something in his hand, got into a car , and

left.

        A few days after the murders, a knife was recovered from the front yard

of a home approximately one-half mile from the victims' home. The knife had

a black handle, with the words "Snap-on" printed on it, and had a red substance

on it, later determined to be the male victim's blood. At trial, the medical

                                                                            A-1720-22
                                         4
examiner testified the same knife was likely used for both murders , and the size

and shape of the knife found was consistent with the victims' stab wounds.

      At trial, the owner of a Snap-On tools franchise confirmed he sold

defendant a knife with a cracked sheath on September 29, 2011. He identified

the knife and sheath recovered by police as the items he sold to defendant.

      The State called Sergeant Patrick Snyder of the Atlantic County

Prosecutor's Office at trial to testify regarding the attempts he made to find any

video footage that would assist in investigating the murders. Specifically, the

police looked for any footage of vehicles leaving the area. They recovered

videos from three local businesses, but these did not show any evidence to assist

the State's case. Sergeant Snyder also testified that eleven months after the

murders, he was asked by the trial prosecutor to drive from the victims' house

to the storage facility and it had taken him twenty-eight minutes and was almost

twenty-three miles.

      The jury convicted defendant of two counts of first-degree murder,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2) (counts one and two); possession of a weapon for an

unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d) (count three); possession of a knife under

circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful use, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)

(count four); hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1) (count five); and

                                                                           A-1720-22
                                        5
three counts of tampering with physical evidence (counts six, seven , and eight),

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1). The judge imposed two consecutive sentences of life

imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, on the

murder counts, a consecutive five-year term on count five, and merged the

convictions on the remaining counts.

      In defendant's second petition for PCR, he argued he was entitled to relief

due to several errors committed by both his trial and appellate attorneys ,

including trial counsel's failure to investigate issues related to DNA evidence,

failure to investigate Atlantic City Expressway Toll Plaza footage, and in the

"handling" of a State's witness, Detective Debra Specht.1 Defendant also argued

his first PCR counsel failed to provide discovery, investigate, or communicate

with him.

      In her fourteen-page written decision, Judge D'Arcy outlined the

procedural and factual history before substantively addressing each of the eight

issues raised. On November 18, 2022, the court denied defendant's second PCR

petition in its entirety without an evidentiary hearing.

1
  Detective Specht of the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office testified to her
use of software to improve the quality of the audibility of the 9-1-1 recording.
                                                                          A-1720-22
                                         6
        On appeal, defendant raises the following issue in his counseled brief for

our consideration:

              POINT I

              [DEFENDANT]    IS   ENTITLED  TO     AN
              EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT
              HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN
              FAILING TO OBTAIN HIGHWAY RECORDS IN AN
              EFFORT TO DISPROVE A KEY ASPECT OF THE
              STATE'S CASE AND TO CORROBORATE HIS
              OWN EXCULPATORY STATEMENT TO RICHARD
              PATTERSON.2

Defendant's pro se supplemental brief presents the following additional

arguments:

              POINT I

              THE SECOND PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
              [DEFENDANT'S] PCR PETITION WITHOUT
              CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
              BECAUSE HE PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE
              CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
              TRIAL, FIRST, AND SECOND PCR COUNSELS.

                     A. Viewing of "YouTube" Video by Jurors.
                     B. DNA Evidence.
                     C. 911 Call Enhancement.

                                        II.

2
    Patterson was defendant's employer and his former girlfriend's uncle.
                                                                            A-1720-22
                                         7
      A PCR petition is "neither a substitute for direct appeal . . . nor an

opportunity to relitigate cases already decided on the merits . . . ." State v.

Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992) (internal citations omitted).           When a

petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, they must

show counsel's performance was deficient, and but for those errors, they would

not have been convicted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694

(1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987). There is a strong presumption

counsel "rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the

exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. To

overcome this presumption, the defendant must demonstrate "counsel's actions

did not equate to 'sound trial strategy.'" State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 358

(2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689); see also State v. Cooper, 410 N.J.

Super. 43, 57 (App. Div. 2009) ("Decisions as to trial strategy or tactics are

virtually unassailable on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.").

      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) (quoting Preciose, 129 N.J. 451,

459 (2013)). To sustain that burden, the defendant must allege and articulate

                                                                             A-1720-22
                                         8
specific facts to "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its

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

      When a PCR court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, appellate review

is de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). A defendant is entitled to

an evidentiary hearing if they present a prima facie case supporting PCR, the

court determines there are material issues of fact that cannot be resolved based

on the existing record, and the court finds an evidentiary hearing is required to

resolve the claims presented. R. 3:22-10(b); see also State v. Porter, 216 N.J.

343, 354 (2013).

                                       III.

      Defendant argues his trial counsel should have obtained highway records

to show the car defendant borrowed had been on the Atlantic City Expressway

between 5:23 a.m., when the police received the initial 9-1-1 call, and 6:00 a.m.,

when the video showed someone enter his storage locker.              Additionally,

defendant asserts video from the Atlantic City Expressway may have showed

the borrowed car around 12:30 a.m., five hours before the 9-1-1 call, which is

when he claimed he left the victims' house and mistakenly left his phone behind.

Further, defendant posits that trial counsel knew when discovery was received

that Sergeant Snyder had traveled this route and was going to testify at trial that

                                                                            A-1720-22
                                        9
it was twenty-three miles from the scene of the crime to the storage locker and

that it took him twenty-eight minutes.

      "[W]hen a [defendant] claims [their] trial attorney inadequately

investigated [their] case, [they] must assert the facts that an investigation would

have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based upon personal

knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification." Porter, 216

N.J. at 353 (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

Super 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999)).

      Here, there were no certifications from trial counsel, an investigator who

had tried to obtain the video footage, or defendant. Rather, the claims are

unsubstantiated, bald assertions.    They are not the required articulation of

specific facts, but rather, mere speculation. Nothing in the record reflects how

long highway records are preserved, or what the videos would or would not have

shown had they been produced. Additionally, defendant has presented no proof

of when trial counsel knew about Sergeant Snyder's intended testimony and

whether it was disclosed in the initial discovery package.           Further, the

application did not include the verifications required by Rule 3:22-8 to

accompany a PCR petition.

                                                                            A-1720-22
                                         10
      Additionally, the court correctly recognized that defendant failed to meet

his burden to overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel had engaged in

sound trial strategy, and to show a reasonable probability that presentation of

the toll footage would have changed the result at trial. As Judge D'Arcy aptly

put it, at best defendant's argument "pertains to a small piece of evidence dealing

with a greater alibi that could be argued in a variety of ways." Defendant's

argument disregards the trial record that the Prosecutor's Office looked for any

video evidence that possibly showed defendant and the borrowed car. Defendant

has offered no evidence to support his arguments, and the court was correct to

deny his petition.

                                       IV.

      Defendant's pro se supplemental brief raises three issues: (1) like trial

counsel, his first PCR counsel failed to investigate claims the jury was tainted

by watching a YouTube video mentioning defendant's incarceration status; (2)

his DNA was never compared to DNA evidence collected from a cigarette butt

and dollar bill found at the crime scene, or to DNA evidence collected from the

knife recovered at the crime scene; and (3) trial counsel did not challenge

Detective Specht's testimony on the victim's 9-1-1 call as an improper lay

opinion on a technical matter requiring expert testimony.

                                                                            A-1720-22
                                       11
      Rule 3:22-5 states, "A prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground

for relief [including in any post-conviction proceeding or appeal therefrom] is

conclusive whether made . . . in any post-conviction proceeding . . . or in any

appeal taken from such proceedings." See also State v. Marshall, 173 N.J. 343,

351 (2002) ("If the claims [in a second PCR petition] are substantially the same,

the petition is procedurally barred[.]"); State v. Odom, 113 N.J. Super. 186, 191

(App. Div. 1971) (citing Rule 3:22-5 and summarily disposing of two issues

raised in defendant's second PCR petition by noting that their merits already had

been ruled on in the denial of defendant's first PCR petition); Echols, 199 N.J.

at 357 (citing Rule 3:22-5 and explaining that a PCR petition is procedurally

barred if the issue was previously decided on the direct appeal or could have

been, but was not, raised on that direct appeal).

      Judge D'Arcy, therefore, correctly rejected all three grounds raised in

defendant's pro se brief, as they were raised in defendant's first PCR petition and

rejected by the first PCR judge as a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim.   Our opinion affirming the denial of defendant's first PCR petition

confirms this fact.   In the face of defendant's choice merely to engage in

repetitious litigation, the prior substantive finding has conclusive effect over his

second PCR claims.

                                                                             A-1720-22
                                        12
      Beyond the preclusive effect of the prior adjudication as a matter of law,

defendant's petition still suffered the same procedural defects noted above,

namely the lack of certifications or affidavits supporting his claim. Defendant's

bald assertions are wholly speculative and insufficient to merit any relief.

Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. at 170 (a defendant cannot rely on "bald assertions

that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel" but must present

legally competent evidence).

                                       V.

      The court also correctly determined that an evidentiary hearing was not

required. As we noted, a hearing on a PCR petition is required only when a

defendant presents a prima facie case for relief, the existing record is not

sufficient to resolve the claims, and the court decides that a hearing is required

to resolve the claims. Porter, 216 N.J. at 354.

      Defendant failed to present a prima facie case for relief. Moreover, the

existing record was sufficient to resolve defendant's claims. The remainder of

defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-1720-22
                                       13