RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0559-23
IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT J.S.
Submitted October 17, 2024 – Decided December 2, 2024
Before Judges Marczyk and Torregrossa-O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. PG-22020034.
J.S., appellant pro se.
Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Edward F. Ray, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Registrant J.S.1 appeals from the trial court's August 1, 2023 order, which
classified him as a Tier Three sex offender pursuant to the registration and
community notification provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23. J.S.
1 We use initials to preserve the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38- 3(c)(9). principally challenges the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS) scores
imposed under factor 7, the length of time since the last offense. Finding no
merit in J.S.'s arguments, we affirm.
I.
In February 2015, then fourteen-year-old S.M. gave a sworn statement to
the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office (BCPO) stating that J.S. sexually
assaulted her in July or early August 2013 when she was thirteen years old. On
the day of the assault, J.S., who had recently finished high school, asked S.M.
to meet him at a local bridge to hang out. S.M. noted J.S. acted "weird" and
seemed angry when he arrived. S.M. stated J.S. told her he wanted to have sex.
After S.M. advised J.S. she did not want to have sex and tried to leave, J.S.
"pulled her by her wrist, pushed her to the ground, ripped off her pants," and
engaged in forceful sex, "causing her pain." S.M. stated, at one point, J.S.
"grabbed her by the throat, pushed her against a wall" and put his penis in her
mouth. J.S. also slapped her in the face, pulled her hair, and cut her left arm
with a piece of glass. S.M. later ran away from the scene.
S.M. informed investigators that prior to the sexual assault she went to
J.S.'s house where he showed her child pornography on his laptop. She could
see there were hundreds of files in a folder labeled "[g]irls." S.M. observed one
A-0559-23 2 of the files depicted "what appeared to her to be two naked [seven] year old
girls" engaging in sexual acts with each other. J.S. told S.M. he "liked [girls]
up to eleven" and "the youngest he would 'go is four.'"
The BCPO subsequently executed a search warrant on J.S.'s home and
seized his computer. J.S. waived his Miranda2 rights and admitted to engaging
in oral sex and sexual intercourse with S.M. and that his computer contained
images of child pornography. A forensic examination found thousands of
images and video files depicting child sexual exploitation on J.S.'s computer.
J.S. was charged with the following: (i) second-degree sexual assault,
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4); (ii) third-degree endangering the welfare of a child,
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); and (iii) third-degree possession of child pornography,
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5).
During the investigation concerning the child pornography on J.S.'s
computer, detectives identified one of the young girls depicted in the images as
E.V. In March 2015, then fifteen-year-old E.V. stated when she was in seventh
or eighth grade, J.S. asked her to send pictures of her breasts and vagina, and
herself masturbating, which she did. J.S. also sent photos of his erect penis to
E.V. Additionally, when E.V. was in eighth grade, she declined J.S.'s invitation
2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). A-0559-23 3 to "hook up" and have sex with him. Based on the foregoing, J.S. was
additionally charged with one count of first-degree endangering the welfare of
a child, manufacturing of child pornography, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(3), and two
counts of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a).
S.M. also advised the BCPO that J.S. had sexually assaulted another
young girl, S.R. S.R. was subsequently interviewed and informed investigators
that J.S. forced her to have sexual intercourse on a regular basis when she was
fourteen or fifteen years old. She would tell J.S. that she did not want to have
sexual intercourse, at which point J.S. became forceful and yelled at her.
According to the investigation report, "[S.R.] stated that [J.S.] forced sexual
intercourse [and performed various sexual acts] on her, . . . and at times, held
her down, yelled and screamed at her." J.S. told S.R. that he "'liked' girls, aged
[eight to twelve]." He stated "[h]e was interested in girls this age that had pubic
hair, and more specifically, were defecating or urinating." He asked S.R. if she
wanted to see those images, which she declined. J.S. was charged by juvenile
complaint for sexually assaulting S.R., but the complaint was later dismissed
because she did not want to proceed with the charges.
In June 2016, J.S. pled guilty to one count of second-degree sexual assault
of S.M. and one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of E.V. In
A-0559-23 4 September 2016, J.S. was examined by licensed psychologist and forensic health
examiner, Mark Frank, Ph.D. Although J.S. claimed he did not recall sexually
assaulting S.M. because of his heavy drug use, he did not dispute her version of
the events and acknowledged, "I must have forced her." He conceded he asked
E.V. to send him naked photos of her engaging in certain sexual acts. He also
admitted being attracted to "girls as young as [twelve to thirteen years old]" and
that he had images on his computer of children who were even younger. He said
his attraction to young girls is "like a drug" and he "[could not] stop." Dr. Frank
determined that J.S.'s conduct was characterized by a pattern of "repetitive,
compulsive" behavior. This made J.S. "eligible for sentencing under the
purview of the New Jersey Sex Offender Act."
On October 21, 2016, J.S. was sentenced to seven years in state prison on
count one with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to
the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. He was further sentenced to five
years on count two to run concurrently with count one. The court also ordered
parole supervision for life (PSL), no contact with the victims, imposition of
Megan's Law reporting requirements, and two Nicole's Law restraining orders.
See N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:44-8. J.S. was paroled on August 27,
2022.
A-0559-23 5 In May 2023, the State completed an RRAS to determine J.S.'s
requirements for sex-offender registration and the level of notice to the
community. Based on obtaining a score of eighty under the RRAS, the State
sought a Tier Three classification, placing J.S. in high-risk range.3 The State
scored J.S. in the following categories: (1) factor 3, "age of victim," assessed
as high risk because S.M. and E.V. were under thirteen years old when J.S. began
his relationship with them; (2) factor 7, "length of time since last offense,"
assessed as high risk because, as of the July hearing, a year had not lapsed since
J.S.'s parole date (August 27, 2022); and (3) factor 8, "history of anti-social
acts," assessed as high risk due to J.S.'s "multiple school suspensions."
In July 2023, the trial court held a Megan's Law tier hearing. During the
proceeding, J.S.'s prior counsel challenged the State's scoring of RRAS factors
3, 7 and 8. Regarding factor 3, counsel argued all three victims were thirteen
years or older when the offenses occurred, which would have reduced J.S.'s
score under that factor. According to counsel, J.S.'s total RRAS score would
have decreased to seventy points, thereby changing his classification from Tier
Three to Tier Two.
3 An RRAS score between 74 and 111 is considered high risk. A-0559-23 6 In response, the State contended J.S. was properly scored. Notably, his
relationship with E.V. and S.M. began when they were twelve years old, even
though the sexual acts with S.M. happened after she turned thirteen.
Furthermore, J.S. showed S.M. photos of child sexual abuse materials, and
discovery referenced sexual images of victims "as young a[s] [seven] [years
old]." Additionally, the State pointed to J.S.'s statements made in the Avenel
report and to S.M. and S.R. regarding his attraction to girls ranging from eight
to thirteen years old. Lastly, after calculating the date ranges of J.S.'s offenses
and the birth dates of S.R. and E.V., the State argued they would have been
twelve when the offenses occurred. 4
The court held additional oral argument later in July 2023. J.S.'s prior
counsel conceded the State was justified in scoring factor 3 as high risk because
"it's not disputed that . . . the pornographic material . . . depicted children under
age [thirteen]." J.S.'s counsel acknowledged the score of eighty was accurate.
J.S. argued that even if he scored an eighty (Tier Three), the court should
exercise its discretion and classify him as Tier Two, moderate risk offender. J.S.
4 S.M. was born in July 2000, and the conduct for count one occurred between July 1, 2013, and August 30, 2013. E.V. was born in June 1999, and the conduct for count two of endangering occurred between September 1, 2011, and August 30, 2013. A-0559-23 7 contended he completed a six-year sentence at Avenel where he had a good
prognosis, with no evidence of sexual interest in children, impulsivity, and he
understands sexual consent.
J.S. further asserted that his total score should be seventy-four because, at
the time of the hearing, he was only a month away from being on parole for one
year without an offense, thereby reducing his factor 7 score, length of time since
last offense, from high risk to moderate. Notwithstanding that the reduced score
under factor 7 resulted in an overall score of seventy-four—still in the Tier Three
range—counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion and classify J.S. as Tier
Two.
The State responded that J.S. should be classified as Tier Three due to the
violence used against S.M. during the "sexual assault." The State noted J.S.
indicated in the Avenel report that he denied parts of the assault and had a hard
time understanding how his actions qualified as rape.
The trial court ruled that J.S.'s score of eighty was undisputed and fell
within Tier Three classification. The court also noted that even if it accepted
J.S.'s argument that he would be offense free for a year as of September 2023,
it would only result in a reduction of the RRAS to seventy-four, which would
still be in the Tier Three high-risk range. The court declined to exercise its
A-0559-23 8 discretion, finding it not "appropriate" to depart from the RRAS score under the
facts of this case. The court based its decision on "clear and convincing
evidence" in the record, including the two victims suffering "particularly
heinous" and violent sexual assaults, J.S.'s lack of remorse and not
acknowledging the conduct as a sexual assault, and the age of the victims. The
court imposed a notification of J.S.'s sex-offender status within one mile of J.S.'s
home, door-to-door notification within two-tenths of a mile from J.S.'s home,
and internet registration.
On August 1, 2023, the court issued an order reflecting the Tier Three
designation and notification requirements. Thereafter, J.S. appealed.
II.
J.S. raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I
THE FAILURE TO GIVE J.S. CREDIT ON RRAS ITEM []7 FOR TIME LIVING OFFENSE-FREE IN THE COMMUNITY FOR THE PERIOD HE WAS RELEASED ON BAIL CONSTITUTED REVERS[IBLE] ERROR.
A. The RRAS Scoring Manual for Item []7 Counts Any Time a Registrant Remains at Risk in the Community without Reoffending.
A-0559-23 9 B. J.S. Remained at Risk in the Community without Reoffending for Over Two Years.
POINT II
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE AT J.S.'S MEGAN'S LAW TIER HEARING FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE STATE'S SCORING OF RRAS ITEMS []3 AND []8.
A. Registrants Challenging the State's Recommended Tier Classification and Scope of Notification at a Megan's Law Tier Hearing Are Constitutionally Entitled to Effective Assistance of Counsel.
B. Sex Offense Risk Assessment Is a Specialized Scientific Field of Inquiry and Attorneys Representing Registrants in Contested Megan's Law Tier Hearing Must Consult with Forensic Experts in Order to Effectively Represent Their Client.
C. Counsel Failed to Consult with a Forensic Expert in Sex Offense Risk Assessment to Determine Whether the Scoring and Use of the RRAS Was Reliable and Valid.
D. J.S.'s Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the State's Scoring of RRAS Items []3 and []8 under the Newly Adopted Daubert Standard for Determining the Admissibility of Scientific, Technical and Other Specialized Knowledge.
A-0559-23 10 E. Properly Scored, the RRAS Yields a Result that Places J.S. Squarely in the Tier [Two] Classification of Megan's Law.
F. Even if the Appellate Division Declines to Grant J.S. Relief Regarding RRAS Items []3 and []8, a Remand for a New Megan's Law Hearing Is Required Because the Megan's Law Court's Rejection of Counsels Request for Discretionary Reduction to Tier [Two] Was Premised on a Higher RRAS Score.
"We review a trial court's conclusions regarding a Megan's Law
registrant's tier designation and scope of community notification for an abuse of
discretion." In re Registrant B.B., 472 N.J. Super. 612, 619 (App. Div. 2022).
"[A]n abuse of discretion 'arises when a decision is made without a rational
explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.'" State v. R.Y., 242 N.J. 48, 65 (2020) (internal quotations
omitted) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the . . . consequences
that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference."
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
"In challenging a tier determination, a registrant may argue that (1) the
RRAS score was erroneously calculated, (2) the case falls outside the 'heartland'
of Megan's Law cases, or (3) the extent of community notification required is
A-0559-23 11 excessive due to 'unique' aspects of the registrant's case." In re Registrant J.G.,
463 N.J. Super. 263, 275 (App. Div. 2020) (citing In re T.T., 188 N.J. 321, 330
(2006)).
The purpose of Megan's Law is "to protect the community from the
dangers of recidivism by sexual offenders." In re C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 80 (1996)
(citing N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1(a)). "The law is remedial and not intended to be
punitive." In re A.A., 461 N.J. Super. 385, 394 (App. Div. 2019) (citing Doe v.
Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 14 (1995)). "The expressed purposes of the registration and
notification procedures [under Megan's Law] are 'public safety' and 'preventing
and promptly resolving incidents involving sexual abuse and missing persons.'"
Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1).
The Megan's Law "[t]ier designations reflect a registrant's risk of re-
offense, as determined by a judge assessing various information, including
thirteen factors referenced in the RRAS." In re Registrant C.J., 474 N.J. Super.
97, 106 (App. Div. 2022), cert. denied, 253 N.J. 602 (2023). Pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a), the RRAS was developed for the State's use "to establish its
prima facie case concerning a registrant's tier classification and manner of
notification." T.T., 188 N.J. at 328 (quoting C.A., 146 N.J. at 110). The RRAS
"is presumptively accurate and is to be afforded substantial weight—indeed it
A-0559-23 12 will even have binding effect—unless and until a registrant 'presents subjective
criteria that would support a court not relying on the tier classification
recommended by the Scale.'" In re G.B., 147 N.J. 62, 81 (1996) (quoting C.A.,
146 N.J. at 109). "Although a tier classification made on the basis of the Scale
should be afforded deference, a court should not rely solely on a registrant's
point total when it conducts a judicial review of a prosecutor's tier level
classification or manner of notification decisions." C.A., 146 N.J. at 108.
"Judicial determinations regarding tier classification and community
notification are made 'on a case-by-case basis within the discretion of the court[]'
and 'based on all of the evidence available[,]' not simply by following the
'numerical calculation provided by the [RRAS].'" C.J., 474 N.J. Super. at 120
(alterations in original) (citing G.B., 147 N.J. at 78-79).
The RRAS contains four categories of review: seriousness of the offense;
offense history; personal characteristics; and community support. See State v.
C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 260 (App. Div. 2017) (citing In re Registrant V.L.,
441 N.J. Super. 425, 429 (App. Div. 2015)). "The first two categories,
'[s]eriousness of [o]ffense' and '[o]ffense [h]istory,' are considered static
categories because they relate to the registrant's prior criminal conduct." C.A.,
146 N.J. at 103. The next two categories, "[c]haracteristics of '[o]ffender' and
A-0559-23 13 '[c]ommunity [s]upport' are considered to be dynamic categories, because they
are evidenced by current conditions." Ibid. The "static factors" relate to past
criminal conduct and weigh more heavily under the RRAS than the dynamic
factors. In re Registrant J.M., 167 N.J. 490, 500 (2001).
The "[s]eriousness of [o]ffense" category takes into account: (1) degree
of force; (2) degree of contact; and (3) age of the victim(s). C.A., 146 N.J. at
103. The "[o]ffense [h]istory" category covers: (4) victim selection; (5) number
of offenses/victims; (6) duration of offensive behavior; (7) length of time since
last offense; and (8) any history of anti-social acts. Ibid. The "[c]haracteristics
of [o]ffender" category accounts for the registrant's: (9) response to treatment
and (10) substance abuse. Id. at 103-04. The final category, "[c]ommunity
[s]upport" considers a registrant's: (11) therapeutic support; (12) residential
support; and (13) employment/educational stability. Id. at 104.
"Each factor is assigned a risk level of low (0), moderate (1), or high (3),
and '[t]he total for all levels within a category provides a score that is then
weighted based on the particular category.'" A.A., 461 N.J. Super. at 402
(alteration in original) (quoting C.A., 146 N.J. at 104). "An RRAS score
[totaling] 0 to 36 is low risk; 37 to 73 moderate risk; and 74 or more, high risk."
T.T., 188 N.J. at 329. The State ultimately bears the burden of proving—by
A-0559-23 14 clear and convincing evidence—a registrant's risk to the community and the
scope of notification necessary to protect the community. In re Registrant R.F.,
317 N.J. Super. 379, 383-84 (App. Div. 1998).
A.
J.S. contends the court failed to give him credit on RRAS factor 7 because
it should be measured from the "last offense" when he was "in a situation in
which he . . . [had] ready, unsupervised access to potential victims." He asserts
that his last offense was on February 24, 2015, when the BCPO seized his
computer. He argues that although he was detained from February 24, 2015
until March 4, 2015, he was "released into the community" until March 19, 2015,
when he was again arrested. However, he was released again on April 13, 2015,
until he was sentenced on October 21, 2016. Therefore, he was "at risk" in the
community for 572 days without committing another offense. He was then
released from custody on August 27, 2022, and was in the community another
339 days prior to the Megan's Law hearing. He maintains he was offense free
for two years, five months and twenty-eight days at the time of the hearing.
Accordingly, he argues the court miscalculated the length of time since his last
offense, and he should have been scored as a moderate risk under factor 7, which
would in turn reduce his RRAS score from eighty to seventy-four.
A-0559-23 15 The State counters J.S. waived this argument because he failed to raise the
issue of his offense-free time period prior to his sentencing. It further notes that
the belated argument is not suited for our consideration because the trial court
never determined whether J.S., in fact, remained offense free and that issue
could only be resolved by a hearing. Alternatively, the State asserts that an
RRAS score of seventy-four still places J.S. in Tier Three, and the trial court
properly determined it would not be appropriate to depart from the risk
assessment under the facts of this case.
We need not consider arguments not raised before the trial court.
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012); Nieder v. Royal
Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); see also State v. Robinson, 200 N.J.
1, 19 (2009) ("Appellate review is not limitless. The jurisdiction of appellate
courts rightly is bounded by the proofs and objections critically explored on the
record before the trial court by the parties themselves."); Zaman v. Felton, 219
N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014); R. 2:2-3.
During the Megan's Law tier hearing, J.S. did not raise the issue that his
pre-sentencing period should be included in scoring the length of time he
remained offense free under factor 7 of the RRAS. J.S.'s only challenge to factor
7 was that "as of . . . August 27[] [he] will be one year on parole, . . . [and] would
A-0559-23 16 then be [seventy-four] points as opposed to [eighty]." Notably, J.S. conceded
an RRAS score of seventy-four points would still place him in the Tier Three
classification, but he asked the court to exercise its discretion and designate him
as Tier Two. Although the pre-sentence time issue was not properly raised
below, because factor 7 was generally addressed, we briefly address the issue.
Even if the trial court included the pre-sentence period, thereby reducing
the score of factor 7 to the moderate risk range, J.S.'s total RRAS score would,
nevertheless, have been seventy-four, which still places him in Tier Three. The
trial court recognized this and noted that even if it accepted J.S.'s argument, his
score still placed him in the "high range." Importantly, the trial court then found
it would be inappropriate under the circumstances to depart from the RRAS, and
it refused to exercise its discretion to reduce J.S.'s designation to Tier Two. In
reaching this decision, the court thoroughly reviewed the record , including the
two children suffering "heinous" and "violen[t]" sexual assaults, and J.S. not
"show[ing] remorse for the conduct" or "acknowledg[ing] the conduct as rape
or . . . sexual assault." In short, the court concluded J.S.'s conduct falls "squarely
in the high-risk range . . . for all of the circumstances set forth [in] the record."
We conclude the court did not misapply its discretion in denying J.S.'s
request to reduce his tier designation. Even assuming the trial court accounted
A-0559-23 17 for the pre-sentencing time period and reduced the score of factor 7, J.S. would
still have been designated a Tier Three offender, and there is no reason to
suggest the trial court would have departed from the Tier Three classification
which it determined was supported by substantial credible evidence.
We are satisfied the trial judge's assessment of the RRAS was not an abuse
of discretion. The trial judge appropriately assessed J.S.'s RRAS factors after a
thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented and appropriately
considered the age of the victims, the level of violence, and what J.S. has done
to better himself since being released into the community. Based on the totality
of the circumstances, the court determined that it was not appropriate to classify
J.S. as a Tier Two offender. The court's conclusion was well supported by the
record, and we discern no basis to disturb the Tier Three classification.
B.
J.S. next advances a series of arguments asserting that his defense counsel
was ineffective at the Megan's Law hearing. Specifically, he argues counsel was
ineffective by failing to: obtain a psychosocial evaluation or risk assessment of
J.S.; consult with an expert to challenge whether the RRAS is a reliable tool;
and investigate whether the State properly scored the RRAS.
A-0559-23 18 The State counters that J.S.'s direct appeal "is not the appropriate vehicle
by which to bring his ineffective assistance of counsel claims because they were
never raised" or properly considered by the trial court. It further contends that
these arguments are "more appropriately raised in a motion to the trial court for
a reevaluation of the RRAS factors based on changed circumstances[,] . . . not
through ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal." It notes the
Attorney General Guidelines provide that tier determinations are an "ongoing
process" and "evidence of change of circumstances or in the relevant factors
may trigger a reevaluation." Attorney General Guidelines for Law Enforcement
for the Implementation of Sex Offender Registration and Community
Notification Laws 53 (rev. 2007).
J.S., in turn, relies on New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services
v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301 (2007), for the proposition that an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim should be permitted in the context of a Megan's Law appeal.
J.S. argues the B.R. Court determined direct appeal provided a practical means
of affording a post-hearing remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel.
B.R. involved a termination of parental rights case. The Court found
direct appeal to be an appropriate "vehicle for determining an ineffectiveness
claim" because it would be the least time-consuming alternative for correcting
A-0559-23 19 erroneous terminations, which is significant given the "need to stabilize the
circumstances of the child." Id. at 310. Such cases are time sensitive in nature
and must be expedited due to the possibility of emotional damage to the child
and detrimental effect on the families. Ibid.
J.S.'s reliance on B.R. is misplaced. He provides no meaningful argument
as to why a Megan's Law proceeding is analogous to termination of parental
rights for the purposes of allowing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to
proceed on direct appeal. B.R. is readily distinguishable because the Court was
concerned with a child being left in "limbo" in the foster care system when there
is "uncertainty about whether a termination order will withstand appeal." Ibid.
(quoting Susan Calkins, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Parental-Rights
Termination Cases: The Challenge for Appellate Courts, 6 J. App. Prac. &
Process 179, 207 (2004)). The same concerns are not present in a Megan's Law
appeal.
"Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised
on direct appeal." State v. Sparano, 249 N.J. Super. 411, 419 (App. Div. 1991).
Instead, a "defendant must develop a record at a hearing at which counsel can
explain the reasons for his conduct and inaction and at which the trial judge can
rule upon the claims including the issue of prejudice." Ibid. Our Supreme Court
A-0559-23 20 has expressed a "general policy against entertaining ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims on direct appeal because such claims involve allegations and
evidence that lie outside the trial record." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 460
(1992). Only in the rare instances "when the trial itself provides an adequately
developed record upon which to evaluate defendant's claims," should an
appellate court consider the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
appeal. State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 313 (2006).
We conclude that resolving J.S.'s ineffective assistance of counsel claims
involves an analysis of strategic decisions and other evidence that lies outside
the record, and a proper record was not developed before the trial court. We
therefore decline to consider J.S.'s ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
To the extent we have not addressed any of J.S.'s remaining arguments, it
is because we have concluded they are of insufficient merit to warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0559-23 21