State of New Jersey v. Jamie Monroe

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: July 15, 2024
• Docket: A-2508-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2508-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMIE MONROE, a/k/a JAMES MONROE, JAMIE L. MONROE, KILLA MONROE, RAZIQ MONROE, and RAZEEK MONROE,

Defendant-Appellant. _______________________

Submitted July 9, 2024 – Decided July 15, 2024

Before Judges Natali and Paganelli.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment Nos. 17-03- 0283, 17-03-0284, 18-04-0608, and 18-05-0834.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Anthony J. Vecchio, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Hudson E. Knight, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jamie Monroe appeals from the Law Division's January 19,

2023 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an

evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant was charged in two separate indictments with twenty-two

serious drug-related and weapons offenses. He eventually pled guilty to three

charges: second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

7b(1) (count one); first-degree maintaining a controlled dangerous substance

(CDS) production facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4 (count three); and second-degree

possession of a firearm while possessing CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A.

2C:35-5 and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1A (count eight).

During his plea colloquy, defendant admitted he had previously been

convicted of felony charges, and on or about September 15, 2016, while in South

Brunswick, possessed a Glock 9-mm handgun while possessing CDS he

intended to sell. Defendant also admitted that between April 10, 2016 and

September 15, 2016, he maintained and operated a premises in Edison where he

"often" brought heroin and repackaged it for distribution and sale.

A-2508-22 2 In exchange for defendant's plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining

counts of both indictments and recommend a twelve-year custodial term with a

five-and-a-half-year period of parole ineligibility with respect to count three,

consecutive to a five-year prison term with forty-two months of parole

ineligibility on count eight, and five years without parole on count one to run

consecutive with count three and concurrent with count eight.

After considering and weighing the applicable aggravating and mitigating

factors, the court sentenced defendant largely consistent with the plea agreement

but reduced the period of parole ineligibility on count three from five-and-a-half

years to five years. Consequently, defendant received an aggregate seventeen-

year prison sentence, with ten years of parole ineligibility.

On direct appeal, defendant only challenged his sentence, which we heard

on an excessive sentencing calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11. We remanded the

matter for resentencing with directions that the court reconsider the aggravating

and mitigating factors, the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to State

v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), and defendant’s eligibility for a Graves Act

waiver under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2. See State v. Monroe, No. A-1046-19 (App.

Div. Sept. 23, 2022).

A-2508-22 3 At resentencing, defendant's counsel requested the court sentence

defendant to an aggregate seventeen-year custodial term, with nine years of

parole ineligibility. He supported the proposed reduction by maintaining the

five-year parole ineligibility period as to count three should be reduced to four

years as it was "consistent with . . . the statute [which] provides . . . the period

of parole ineligibility is one-third to one-half of the sentence." He also argued

defendant participated in numerous programs while incarcerated that supported

additional mitigation. Significantly, counsel also stressed a key issue for the

court to resolve under Yarbough was whether consecutive sentences should be

imposed.

After considering the parties' oral arguments and submissions, the

sentencing court reconsidered the aggravating factors anew, and while finding

applicable aggravating factors three, six, and nine, unlike at the initial

sentencing proceeding, concluded aggravating factor five no longer applied.

The court remained convinced, however, that the aggravating factors

substantially outweighed the non-existent mitigating factors.

The court also comprehensively considered, consistent with our remand

instructions, the propriety of consecutive sentences under Yarbough and

determined consecutive sentences were appropriate under the circumstances and

A-2508-22 4 issued a detailed oral decision supporting its conclusion. As the court explained,

defendant's "objective" was "to produce and distribute drugs, and the second

[objective] [was] . . . [to] possess[] a weapon when one is not entitled or

permitted to do so as a result of being a convicted felon." The judge also found

the crimes occurred "in two different points, meaning . . . the gun was found in

one location, production facility in another[,] and at different times." The court

further determined defendant's possession of a gun was "a separate and distinct

charge" apart from the maintaining a CDS production facility charge.

As a result, the court resentenced defendant to the same twelve-year term

on count three, but reduced the period of parole ineligibility from five years to

four "based on the efforts that [defendant] has made while incarcerated . . . [a]nd

the fact that the [c]ourt is no longer considering aggravating factor five." The

court also reimposed the consecutive five-year-custodial term with a forty-two-

month period of parole ineligibility with respect to count eight and a five-year

prison term without parole on count one, again to run consecutive with count

three and concurrent with count eight. Consequently, defendant received an

aggregate seventeen-year sentence with nine years of parole ineligibility. The

court also denied defendant’s challenge to the denial of his Graves Act waiver

request.

A-2508-22 5 Defendant did not file a direct appeal challenging his amended judgment

of conviction. Instead, he timely filed a pro se PCR petition in which he certified

his counsel failed to communicate with him, failed to properly investigate his

case, and failed to provide all necessary discovery to him prior to encouraging

him to accept the State's plea offer. He also contended he did not enter the plea

voluntarily. The record contains no supplemental certification nor any

counseled submissions that in any away amended or illuminated defendant's

petition.

It appears, however, that at some point, defendant was appointed counsel

who appeared for oral arguments. At that proceeding, defendant's PCR counsel

contended defendant's sentencing counsel failed to make a "sufficient argument

. . . for the sentences to run concurrently as opposed to consecutively." He

explained that "under State [v. Yarbough] . . . those sentences should have run

concurrently. In other words, instead of having a seventeen-year sentence, there

should been a sentence reduced by the five years imposed on the second part of

the consecutive sentence."

Counsel further stated concurrent sentences were appropriate because

"even though there [was] a search made at two different places . . . it 's a unitary

event . . . and as a result, under [Yarbough], [there should have been] [o]ne

A-2508-22 6 sentence where all the charges are run concurrently." In addition, PCR counsel

also maintained counsel at resentencing "did not properly articulate the reasons

that were appropriate for a lesser sentence." Finally, defendant contended his

counsel neither informed him, nor did he understand, the nature of a consecutive

sentence.

The PCR court rejected defendant's contentions in an oral opinion. The

court explained the plea and sentencing transcripts confirmed defendant was

aware and understood the consecutive nature of his sentence, and the court duly

considered the propriety of consecutive sentences under Yarbough, consistent

with our remand order.

This appeal followed in which defendant raises the following points:

I. DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING HIS RESENTENCING HEARING.

II. DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING HIS PLEA HEARING.

III. THE PCR COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

Having considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the

applicable law, we discern no legal or factual error in the PCR judge's

A-2508-22 7 consideration of the issues, or in his decision to deny the petition without an

evidentiary hearing.

Because defendant's PCR petition is predicated on his claim that his plea

and sentencing counsel were ineffective, he must satisfy the two-part test

pronounced in Strickland v. Washington by demonstrating that "counsel's

performance was deficient," that is, "that counsel made errors so serious that

counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the

Sixth Amendment." 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J.

42, 58 (1987). The first prong requires a showing that "counsel's representation

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.

It is the defendant's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

counsel's decisions about trial strategy were not within the broad spectrum of

competent legal representation. See Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52.

Under the "second, and far more difficult prong," of the Strickland

standard, State v. Gideon, 244 N.J. 538, 550 (2021) (quoting State v. Preciose,

129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992)), a defendant "must show that the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense[,]" State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 611 (2014)

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). That is, "[t]he defendant must show that

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the

A-2508-22 8 result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is

a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Gideon, 244

N.J. at 550-51 (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

Proof of prejudice under Strickland’s second prong "is an exacting

standard." Id. at 551 (quoting State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008)). A

defendant seeking PCR "must affirmatively prove prejudice" to satisfy the

second prong of the Strickland standard. Ibid. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at

693). To prevail on a PCR petition, a defendant must establish both prongs of

the Strickland test. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 542

(2013). A failure to satisfy either prong requires the denial of a PCR petition

founded on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. at 700.

Further, a defendant petitioning for PCR must establish, by a

preponderance of the credible evidence, that he is entitled to the requested relief.

Nash, 212 N.J. at 541; Preciose, 129 N.J. at 459. To sustain that burden, the

defendant must allege and articulate specific facts that "provide the court with

an adequate basis on which to rest its decision." State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565,

579 (1992). Where, as here, a PCR court does not hold an evidentiary hearing,

we "conduct a de novo review of both the factual findings and legal conclusions

A-2508-22 9 of the PCR court." State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016)

(quoting State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004)).

In defendant's first point, he maintains his sentencing counsel failed to

seek a sentence less than that prescribed by the negotiated plea or seek

concurrent sentences consistent with State v. Briggs, 349 N.J. Super. 496, 501

(App. Div. 2002), and Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 627. Defendant contends despite

the location of the drugs and weapon being located in different residences, "what

occurred was one unitary event" and thus his "sentences should . . . have run

concurrently." Defendant specifically maintains it would have been appropriate

for the "sentence on count one . . . to be served concurrently to the sentences

imposed on counts three and eight." And, rather than arguing for concurrent

sentences under these facts, defendant's counsel instead advocated for a

"[seventeen]-year term of imprisonment with [nine] years of parole

ineligibility."

In his second point, defendant maintains his plea counsel failed to

"suppl[y] [him] with sufficient information regarding his sentencing exposure."

He specifically contends his counsel failed to advise him properly regarding the

possibility he could be sentenced to consecutive terms for the crimes to which

he pled guilty. Defendant further argues his counsel "did not properly explain

A-2508-22 10 the applicable law and potential sentences that could be imposed." Finally,

defendant contends in his third point the court erred in resolving his petition

without an evidentiary hearing. We disagree with all these arguments.

The record fully supports the PCR judge's denial of defendant's petition

as he failed to establish either the performance or prejudice prong of the

Strickland test. We first note that defendant's petition fails to even address with

any level of specificity, the alleged deficiencies with respect to his plea and

sentencing counsel and we could affirm the court's denial of defendant's petition

on this basis alone, as it is well settled that "a petitioner must do more than make

bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v.

Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super.

154, 170 (App. Div. 1999)); see also R. 3:22-10(c). Despite the procedural and

substantive deficiencies in defendant's petition, we address the merits of his

arguments for purposes of completeness.

With respect to defendant's claim his plea counsel was ineffective for

failing to inform him of the nature of consecutive sentences, a review of the plea

transcript belies any such claim. Indeed, in that transcript, the court explained,

in detail, the practical effect of its sentence on each individual charge and in the

aggregate. Defendant engaged with the court and clearly demonstrated his

A-2508-22 11 understanding of the negotiated plea and the court's sentence. By way of

example only, when discussing the plea with the prosecutor, defendant twice

acknowledged he understood the meaning of an aggregate sentence. Further,

when asked if he understood the real-time consequences of the proposed

sentence, defendant responded, "[t]wo five[-]year sentence[s] run concurrent,

but consecutive . . . to the [twelve-]year sentence." Defendant also

demonstrated his understanding by "doing the math" with respect to his period

of parole ineligibility.

Any challenge to his sentencing counsel's representation is similarly

unavailing. Defendant's counsel made merit-based arguments at resentencing

consistent with our remand, which resulted in the court concluding a previous

aggravating factor did not apply and the attendant reduction in the period of

defendant's parole ineligibility. Counsel also specifically noted the obligation

of the court to conduct a Yarbough analysis.

To the extent defendant's claim is grounded in an argument his counsel

did not advocate more forcefully for concurrent sentences, we consider such a

claim also meritless, as the court engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the

Yarbough factors and concluded the circumstances of the crimes warranted that

A-2508-22 12 count one run consecutive to counts three and eight. We also note that defendant

never appealed or challenged his amended sentence.

Finally, we note defendant fails to even argue before us how his plea and

sentencing counsel's alleged ineffective performance prejudiced him, a fatal

deficiency. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700. We again, for purposes of

completeness, have nevertheless considered the issue on the merits and conclude

the record fails to support any claim defendant suffered prejudice from any

alleged ineffectiveness of his plea or sentencing counsel.

In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant must establish "that there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [he or she] would not have

pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J.

339, 351 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J.

129, 139 (2009)). A defendant must also convince the court that "a decision to

reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances."

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010).

Here, defendant accepted a favorable plea offer resulting in an aggregate

seventeen-year sentence for three serious offenses, and the dismissal of nineteen

charges, including a first-degree charge of leading a narcotics trafficking

network, which alone carried a potential life term, see N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3.

A-2508-22 13 Further, defendant never challenged the factual basis with respect to the three

charges to which he pled guilty, and there is simply no support in the record that

it would have been rational under the circumstances for defendant to have

rejected the State's favorable plea offer. See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372.

Finally, because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of

ineffective assistance, an evidentiary hearing was not required. See Preciose,

129 N.J. at 462.

Affirmed.

A-2508-22 14