NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2192-17T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. YUSEF B. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Submitted February 3, 2020 – Decided April 14, 2020 Before Judges Ostrer and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 98-08-1208. Yusef Allen, appellant pro se. Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Meredith L. Balo, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant, Yusef Allen, was tried before a jury and convicted of murder and related weapons offenses in 1999. He was sentenced to a life term of imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. That translates to almost 69 years of parole ineligibility. Defendant now appeals from the dismissal of his most recent motion for a new trial based on what he claims to be newly discovered evidence. This is not the first time we have had occasion to address defendant's murder conviction. Over the course of the last two decades, defendant has been persistent in challenging the jury verdict in direct and collateral appeals brought in State and federal courts. The motion presently before us, moreover, is not the first time defendant has claimed that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant's present motion was filed pro se and an assistant public defender was assigned to the matter. Assigned counsel investigated defendant's contentions and submitted a certification to the motion court concluding that "there was not enough reliable information to validate a credible motion." The motion judge relied upon that certification and dismissed defendant's motion for a new trial. The court issued a one-page order that reads in pertinent part, "[g]iven [assigned counsel's] certification dated June 13, 2017 (copy of which A-2192-17T1 2 is attached), this Court is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted and there was insufficient reliable information to validate a credible motion." We begin our analysis by acknowledging the deferential standard of review that applies in this appeal. "A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion." State v. Artis, 36 N.J. 538, 541 (1962) (citing State v. Smith, 29 N.J. 561, 573 (1959)). "An abuse of discretion 'arises on demonstration of manifest error or injustice,' or when 'there has been a clear error of judgment.'" Rodriguez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 237 N.J. 36, 57 (2019) (citations omitted). Said differently, an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial judge's "decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals