NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0311-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICARDO A. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted March 2, 2021 – Decided May 28, 2021 Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 15-04-0816 and 15-10-2292. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Damen J. Thiel, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Theodore N. Stephens, II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Barbara A. Rosenkrans, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Ricardo A. Thompson pleaded guilty to two charges in separate indictments: second-degree possession of a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) in one and fourth-degree possession of marijuana, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a) in the other. Twenty-five months after he was sentenced to an aggregate three-year probationary term, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) on one indictment, followed by a second PCR petition on the second indictment. Defendant appeals from the consolidated order denying both petitions arguing: POINT I THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING HIS INVESTIGATION, DEFENSE, AND PLEA HEARING, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS REQUIRED, AND THE PETITION WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED. A. Defense Counsel Rendered Ineffective Assistance During Defendant's Initial Investigation and Defense Against the Charges. B. Defense Counsel Rendered Ineffective Assistance During Defendant's Plea Hearing. C. The PCR Court's Refusal to Hold an Evidentiary Hearing Denied Defendant Due Process and Deprived the Court of an 2 A-0311-19 Accurate Factual Basis for its Decision. D. Defendant's PCR Petition Was Not Procedurally Barred under Rule 3:22-4. Reviewing the factual inferences drawn by the trial court and its legal conclusions de novo because it did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016), and considering "the facts in the light most favorable to [the] defendant," State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462- 63 (1992), we affirm because defendant did not establish his plea counsel was ineffective under the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), 1 and an evidentiary hearing was not warranted, Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63; see also R. 3:22-10(b). To establish a PCR claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong test formulated in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, and adopted by our Supreme Court in Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58. That requires a defendant 1 To establish a PCR claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong test formulated in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals