NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1632-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
JOSHUA TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted September 19, 2022 – Decided September 28, 2022
Before Judges Currier and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 16-10-2847.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Grace C. MacAulay, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Joshua Taylor appeals from an October 7, 2020 order denying
his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We
affirm.
On July 24, 2017, defendant appeared in court for a plea hearing on
charges related to robbery, weapons possession, and terroristic threats. At the
hearing, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree conspiracy to commit
robbery under Indictment No. 16-10-2847 and third-degree terroristic threats
under Accusation No. 17-17-2017. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State
agreed to recommend a seven-year term with an eighty-five percent period of
parole ineligibility on the conspiracy charge and a concurrent three-year term
on the terroristic threat charge. The State agreed to dismiss all remaining
charges under the proposed plea agreement.
During the plea colloquy, the judge questioned defendant regarding his
understanding of the plea and his ability to discuss the plea form and the waiver
of indictment form with his attorney. The judge also questioned defendant
regarding his signature on the forms. Further, the judge asked defendant, "you
understand that if you come back later and you tell me that your guilty plea was
not voluntary, it's going to be very hard for me to believe that in light of the way
you are testifying right now?" Defendant responded, "yes."
A-1632-20 2 At the hearing, defense counsel established the factual basis for
defendant's plea. After finding defendant's guilty plea to be "knowing and
voluntary," the judge accepted the plea and scheduled sentencing for later in the
year.
After the plea hearing but before sentencing, defendant filed a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. In seeking to withdraw his plea, defendant claimed he
was not mentally competent because he previously received psychiatric
treatment and should have been on psychiatric medication at the time of the plea
hearing but was not.
On December 4, 2017, the day of the sentencing hearing, the judge denied
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. She found the medical records
submitted in support of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea were from 2013,
four years before the plea hearing. She stated there were no medical records
contemporaneous with the date of the plea hearing related to defendant's mental
health. Additionally, the judge specifically recalled defendant's answers to her
questions during the plea colloquy and noted defendant's responses were not
indicative of someone who lacked the capacity to understand the proceeding.
After denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the judge sentenced
defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
A-1632-20 3 Defendant filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence
imposed. The appeal was scheduled before a panel on an excessive sentencing
calendar. In a September 25, 2018 order, we affirmed defendant's sentence and
conviction. State v. Taylor, Docket No. A-3927-17 (App. Div. Sept. 25, 2018).
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition on October 30, 2019. Defendant's
assigned counsel submitted an amended PCR petition and supporting documents
on July 2, 2020. Defendant argued his trial attorney was ineffective in failing
to request a competency hearing and file a motion for a Wade1 hearing.
The matter was heard by the PCR judge on October 7, 2020. In a decision
rendered from the bench, the judge denied defendant's PCR petition. The judge
found defendant failed to identify any "actual omissions by counsel that were
not the result of reasonable, professional judgment." The judge further
concluded defendant did not demonstrate any actual prejudice based on the
alleged deficient performance of defense counsel.
On the issue of a motion for a Wade hearing, the judge believed the
identification of defendant by the co-defendants "was so strong" that a motion
challenging the victim's identification of defendant would have been
"meritless."
1 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). A-1632-20 4 On the issue of a competency hearing, the judge explained defendant
failed to demonstrate any mental health issues at the time of the plea he aring.
The only evidence supporting a mental health diagnosis were medical records
from 2013. Further, the PCR judge noted defendant "graduate[d] from [a]
psychiatric hospital in 2013, four years prior [to his] plea." Thus, the judge held
defendant failed to demonstrate he lacked competency at the time of the plea
colloquy and sentencing.
Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO REQUEST A COMPETENCY HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL AND TO REQUEST A WADE HEARING TO CHALLENGE THE VICTIM'S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT.
The Prevailing Legal Principles Regarding Claims Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Evidentiary Hearings And Petitions For Post[-]Conviction Relief.
Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Request A
A-1632-20 5 Competency Hearing To Determine Whether Defendant Had The Mental Capacity To Stand Trial.
Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Request A Wade Hearing To Challenge The Victim's Identification Of Defendant.
Defendant Is Entitled To A Remand To The Trial Court To Afford Him An Evidentiary Hearing To Determine The Merits Of His Contention That He Was Denied The Effective Assistance Of Trial Counsel.
We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super.
387, 401 (App. Div. 2013). To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective
counsel, defendant must show: (1) counsel's performance was objectively
deficient; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced defendant to the
extent they were deprived of their right to a fair trial. State v. Fritz, 105 N.J.
42, 58 (1987) (adopting the United States Supreme Court's two-prong test in
Strickland v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-1632-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
JOSHUA TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted September 19, 2022 – Decided September 28, 2022
Before Judges Currier and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 16-10-2847.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Grace C. MacAulay, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Joshua Taylor appeals from an October 7, 2020 order denying
his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We
affirm.
On July 24, 2017, defendant appeared in court for a plea hearing on
charges related to robbery, weapons possession, and terroristic threats. At the
hearing, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree conspiracy to commit
robbery under Indictment No. 16-10-2847 and third-degree terroristic threats
under Accusation No. 17-17-2017. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State
agreed to recommend a seven-year term with an eighty-five percent period of
parole ineligibility on the conspiracy charge and a concurrent three-year term
on the terroristic threat charge. The State agreed to dismiss all remaining
charges under the proposed plea agreement.
During the plea colloquy, the judge questioned defendant regarding his
understanding of the plea and his ability to discuss the plea form and the waiver
of indictment form with his attorney. The judge also questioned defendant
regarding his signature on the forms. Further, the judge asked defendant, "you
understand that if you come back later and you tell me that your guilty plea was
not voluntary, it's going to be very hard for me to believe that in light of the way
you are testifying right now?" Defendant responded, "yes."
A-1632-20 2 At the hearing, defense counsel established the factual basis for
defendant's plea. After finding defendant's guilty plea to be "knowing and
voluntary," the judge accepted the plea and scheduled sentencing for later in the
year.
After the plea hearing but before sentencing, defendant filed a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. In seeking to withdraw his plea, defendant claimed he
was not mentally competent because he previously received psychiatric
treatment and should have been on psychiatric medication at the time of the plea
hearing but was not.
On December 4, 2017, the day of the sentencing hearing, the judge denied
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. She found the medical records
submitted in support of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea were from 2013,
four years before the plea hearing. She stated there were no medical records
contemporaneous with the date of the plea hearing related to defendant's mental
health. Additionally, the judge specifically recalled defendant's answers to her
questions during the plea colloquy and noted defendant's responses were not
indicative of someone who lacked the capacity to understand the proceeding.
After denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the judge sentenced
defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
A-1632-20 3 Defendant filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence
imposed. The appeal was scheduled before a panel on an excessive sentencing
calendar. In a September 25, 2018 order, we affirmed defendant's sentence and
conviction. State v. Taylor, Docket No. A-3927-17 (App. Div. Sept. 25, 2018).
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition on October 30, 2019. Defendant's
assigned counsel submitted an amended PCR petition and supporting documents
on July 2, 2020. Defendant argued his trial attorney was ineffective in failing
to request a competency hearing and file a motion for a Wade1 hearing.
The matter was heard by the PCR judge on October 7, 2020. In a decision
rendered from the bench, the judge denied defendant's PCR petition. The judge
found defendant failed to identify any "actual omissions by counsel that were
not the result of reasonable, professional judgment." The judge further
concluded defendant did not demonstrate any actual prejudice based on the
alleged deficient performance of defense counsel.
On the issue of a motion for a Wade hearing, the judge believed the
identification of defendant by the co-defendants "was so strong" that a motion
challenging the victim's identification of defendant would have been
"meritless."
1 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). A-1632-20 4 On the issue of a competency hearing, the judge explained defendant
failed to demonstrate any mental health issues at the time of the plea he aring.
The only evidence supporting a mental health diagnosis were medical records
from 2013. Further, the PCR judge noted defendant "graduate[d] from [a]
psychiatric hospital in 2013, four years prior [to his] plea." Thus, the judge held
defendant failed to demonstrate he lacked competency at the time of the plea
colloquy and sentencing.
Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO REQUEST A COMPETENCY HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL AND TO REQUEST A WADE HEARING TO CHALLENGE THE VICTIM'S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT.
The Prevailing Legal Principles Regarding Claims Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Evidentiary Hearings And Petitions For Post[-]Conviction Relief.
Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Request A
A-1632-20 5 Competency Hearing To Determine Whether Defendant Had The Mental Capacity To Stand Trial.
Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Legal Representation By Virtue Of His Failure To Request A Wade Hearing To Challenge The Victim's Identification Of Defendant.
Defendant Is Entitled To A Remand To The Trial Court To Afford Him An Evidentiary Hearing To Determine The Merits Of His Contention That He Was Denied The Effective Assistance Of Trial Counsel.
We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super.
387, 401 (App. Div. 2013). To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective
counsel, defendant must show: (1) counsel's performance was objectively
deficient; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced defendant to the
extent they were deprived of their right to a fair trial. State v. Fritz, 105 N.J.
42, 58 (1987) (adopting the United States Supreme Court's two-prong test in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). Prejudice means "a
reasonable probability" the deficient performance "materially contributed to
defendant's conviction." Ibid.
To meet the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel,
defendant "must do more than make bald assertions." State v. Cummings, 321
N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). A defendant must "allege facts sufficient
A-1632-20 6 to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance." Ibid. Even if there
is a showing of deficient counsel, "defendant must demonstrate a reasonab le
likelihood that his or her claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." State v.
Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463
(1992)).
There is "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide
range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 157 (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 689). "The quality of counsel's performance cannot be fairly assessed
by focusing on a handful of issues while ignoring the totality of counsel's
performance in the context of the State's evidence of defendant's guilt." State v.
Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006) (citing State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 165
(1991)). A decision will not be overturned merely because a defendant is
dissatisfied with counsel's judgment. State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008)
(citing Castagna, 187 N.J. at 314).
Merely raising a PCR claim does not entitle a defendant to relief or an
evidentiary hearing. See Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. at 170. Trial courts should
only grant an evidentiary hearing if the defendant presented a prima facie case
of ineffective assistance of counsel, material issues of disputed fact lie outside
the record, and resolution of those issues necessitates a hearing. R. 3:22-10(b).
A-1632-20 7 "If the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's
analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief, . . . then
an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401
(quoting Marshall, 148 N.J. at 158).
Here, defendant asserts defense counsel was ineffective because he failed
to request a competency hearing prior to sentencing and failed to request a Wade
hearing challenging the victim's identification of defendant. We reject
defendant's arguments.
We first address defendant's argument his counsel was ineffective in
failing to request a competency hearing. In Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S.
402 (1960), the United States Supreme Court defined the minimum requirements
to determine a defendant's competence to stand trial. The test is "whether [the
defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as
well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." State v. Purnell,
394 N.J. Super. 28, 47 (App. Div. 2007). New Jersey statutory law provides that
"[n]o person who lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against [them]
or to assist in [their] own defense shall be tried, convicted or sentenced for the
A-1632-20 8 commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures." N.J.S.A. 2C:4 -
4(a).
We agree with the sentencing judge and the PCR judge that the proofs
presented by defendant failed to raise any bona fide doubt as to his competency.
Defendant never presented any medical records from the time of the plea hearing
suggesting a mental infirmity. The only records presented were dated four years
prior to the plea colloquy. Significantly, those records showed defendant was
treated for depression and other mental health issues and satisfactorily
discharged from a psychiatric hospital in 2013. Moreover, defendant's
responses to the sentencing judge's questions during the plea hearing evidenced
defendant fully understood the proceeding and agreed to the terms of the
negotiated plea after discussing the plea with his attorney. In fact, defendant
addressed the judge during the plea hearing to ensure his sentences were
concurrent and not consecutive.
Because defendant failed to present any evidence concerning his mental
status at the time of the plea hearing, the PCR judge correctly found defense
counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing prior to
sentencing.
A-1632-20 9 We next address defendant's argument that his defense counsel was
ineffective for failing to file a Wade motion with regard to the photographic
identification by the victim. Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied
the PCR judge properly determined such a motion would not only have been
unsuccessful but would have been totally without merit.
Here, defendant was identified by his co-defendants. The co-defendants
not only knew defendant but identified defendant as a participant in their
robbery scheme. Our Supreme Court noted a Wade hearing is not required for
a "confirmatory" identification because such an identification is "not considered
suggestive." State v. Pressley, 232 N.J. 587, 592 (2018). Because the co-
defendants confirmed the identification of defendant, the victim's identification
was surplusage and there was no need for a Wade hearing under these
circumstances. Therefore, defense counsel did not err in filing a motion that
lacked any basis in fact or law.
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the judge properly denied
defendant's PCR petition based on defendant's failure to demonstrate he received
ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland/Fritz analysis.
Affirmed.
A-1632-20 10