Court Opinion

ID: 9931074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 15:06:58.636421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:13.724584
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0151-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY EUGENE
STEVENSON, a/k/a ANTHONY
E. DIXON, RALPH BEATTY,
MICHAEL BOLTON, DARRELL
PITTARD, TONY STEVENSON,
and NYGEE,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Submitted January 30, 2024 – Decided February 8, 2024

                   Before Judges Rose and Smith.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
                   12-05-0895.

                   Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Christopher W. Hsieh, Designated Counsel,
                   on the brief).
            Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor,
            attorney for respondent (Alecia Nathanne Woodard,
            Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Anthony Eugene Stevenson appeals from a July 26, 2022 order

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

hearing. Defendant claimed his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance. In a cogent written decision accompanying the order, Judge Michael

A. Guadagno, who had not tried the case, thoroughly analyzed the issues raised

in view of the governing law.

      On appeal, defendant abandons all but one claim he had raised against

appellate counsel and otherwise reprises the same arguments raised before the

PCR court. In a single point, defendant asserts:

                  THE [PCR] COURT ERRED IN DENYING
                  DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR]
                  WITHOUT    AFFORDING     HIM    AN
                  EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY
                  ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE
                  RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
                  COUNSEL.

                  A. Trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising
                  defendant regarding the plea offer and the
                  exposure he faced if convicted at trial.

                                                                         A-0151-22
                                       2
                   B. Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
                   prepare defendant to testify and to advise him
                   that the decision to testify was his alone to make.
                   C. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
                   properly investigate and argue the entrapment
                   defense.

                   D. Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
                   to argue on direct appeal that the court erred in
                   denying defendant's motion for change of venue.

      We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the applicable law,

and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by

Judge Guadagno in his well-reasoned written decision, adding the following

brief remarks.

      A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he "has

presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J.

89, 158 (1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J.

451, 462 (1992)), meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable

likelihood that his . . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. For a

defendant to obtain relief based on ineffective assistance grounds, he 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,

                                                                             A-0151-22
                                        3
58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey) (Strickland/Fritz

test).

         In the present matter, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable

likelihood that his PCR claim will ultimately succeed on the merits and failed

to satisfy either prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. Because there was no prima

facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing was

not necessary to resolve defendant's PCR claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

         Affirmed.

                                                                           A-0151-22
                                       4