Court Opinion

ID: 9954449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:08:26.808324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:17.401577
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3680-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NERI R. SANCHEZ, a/k/a
PAUL A. ROTHMALLER,
NARRY SANCHEZ, and
NESS SANTIAGO,

     Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________

                   Submitted February 26, 2024 – Decided March 26, 2024

                   Before Judges Gilson and DeAlmeida.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 15-06-
                   0684.

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

                   Jennifer   Webb-McRae,                         Cumberland               County
                   Prosecutor, attorney for                        respondent            (Stephen
            Christopher Sayer, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
            on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Neri R. Sanchez appeals from a June 30, 2022 order denying

his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. He

contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective in not sufficiently briefing

and arguing that defendant was prejudiced by the admission of certain parts of

the statement he gave to the police that were then presented to the jury. We

reject that argument and affirm.

      A jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)

to (2), and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). The weapons conviction was merged into the murder

conviction, and defendant was sentenced to sixty years in prison, subject to the

No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

      Defendant filed a direct appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.

One of defendant's primary arguments on direct appeal was that the trial court

erred in admitting and presenting to the jury the portions of defendant's

interrogation that contained irrelevant and prejudicial discussions about drugs

and gangs. We held that although the references to drugs and gangs should not

have been admitted, the admission was harmless error. See State v. Sanchez,

                                                                          A-3680-21
                                       2
No. A-4236-17 (App. Div. Jan. 2, 2020) (slip op. at 11, 12). In that regard, we

explained:

             We hold that the references to drugs and drug
             paraphernalia were harmless error for two related
             reasons. First, the other evidence against defendant
             was strong. That evidence included testimony from two
             witnesses who were present at the time of the murder
             and one of the witnesses was sitting next to the victim
             when defendant shot the victim in the back of his head.
             . . . Second, and more importantly, the trial court gave
             a curative instruction concerning the drugs.

             [Id. at 11.]

We also held that the reference to gang affiliation was harmless error. Id. at 12.

We noted that both defense counsel and the prosecutor agreed that the references

to gangs in defendant's interrogation were limited. Ibid. Accordingly, defense

counsel elected not to have the court give a curative instruction because the

instruction would have only highlighted the reference. Ibid. The trial court

agreed with that reasonable request, and we held that there was no reversible

error in that decision. Ibid. We also rejected defendant's other arguments and

affirmed his convictions and sentence. Id. at 13-14.

      The New Jersey Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for

certification. State v. Sanchez, 241 N.J. 344 (2020). Several months later, in

November 2020, defendant filed a petition for PCR. He was assigned counsel,

                                                                            A-3680-21
                                        3
and the PCR court heard oral argument on defendant's petition. On June 30,

2022, the PCR court issued an order and written opinion denying defendant's

PCR petition.

      In its written opinion, the PCR court addressed each of the arguments

defendant raised in his petition and found that defendant had failed to establish

a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of either trial or appellate

counsel. In rejecting defendant's claim that his appellate counsel on his direct

appeal was ineffective, the PCR court reasoned that we had thoroughly

considered defendant's arguments about the references to drugs and gangs in the

interrogation statement admitted into evidence at the jury trial. The PCR court

also found that defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

      On this appeal, defendant repeats one of the arguments he made to the

PCR court. He articulates that argument as follows:

            AS DEFENDANT HAD PRESENTED A PRIMA
            FACIE CASE THAT APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS
            INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT FULLY ARGUING ON
            DIRECT APPEAL THAT THE ERROR TO ADMIT
            THE    IRRELEVANT     AND   PREJUDICIAL
            DISCUSSIONS IN THE INTERROGATION OF THE
            DEFENDANT WERE NOT HARMLESS, AND
            THERE WAS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL
            FACT IN DISPUTE, THE PCR COURT ERRED
            WHEN IT DENIED THE CLAIM WITHOUT FIRST
            HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

                                                                           A-3680-21
                                       4
      When a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, appellate

courts review the denial of a PCR petition de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J.

391, 420-21 (2004); State v. Lawrence, 463 N.J. Super. 518, 522 (App. Div.

2020). A PCR court's decision to proceed without an evidentiary hearing is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Vanness, 474 N.J. Super. 609, 623

(App. Div. 2023) (citing State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div.

2013)).

      Having conducted a de novo review, we agree with the PCR court that

defendant did not satisfy the Strickland test. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the

Strickland two-prong test in New Jersey). Defendant argues that the evidence

against him was not as strong as we believed in holding that there was no

reversible error. He points out that the gun used to kill the victim was not found,

there was no DNA evidence recovered, and multiple people had entered and

exited the apartment where the murder took place. We were fully aware of those

facts when we concluded that the evidence against defendant was strong. Those

contentions do not undercut the eyewitnesses' testimonies against defendant.

One of those eyewitnesses was sitting by the victim when defendant shot the

victim. Although that witness did not see defendant fire the shot, he turned and

                                                                             A-3680-21
                                        5
saw defendant holding the gun. Another witness was in another room when he

heard the shot, but when he went outside the apartment, he saw defendant

holding a gun. Accordingly, defendant's arguments concerning the alleged

ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel lacked merit.

      Having failed to establish a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance

of counsel, defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v.

Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); R. 3:22-10(b).

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-3680-21
                                        6