State of New Jersey v. Lawrence E. Pippins

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: A-3304-23
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3304-23

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LAWRENCE E. PIPPINS, a/k/a LONNIE E. PIPPINS,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________

Submitted September 25, 2025 – Decided October 3, 2025

Before Judges Mawla and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 17-09- 0939.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John V. Molitor, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

LaChia L. Bradshaw, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nicole Handy, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Lawrence E. Pippins appeals from the May 1, 2024 order

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

hearing. Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the applicable

law, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Richard J.

Nocella in his well-reasoned written decision, adding the following remarks.

Following his guilty plea to first-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A.

2C:14-2(a)(4), and first-degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)(2), we

affirmed defendant's aggregate twenty-five-year sentence. State v. Pippins, No.

A-5539-17 (App. Div. May 7, 2019). In his petition for PCR, defendant claimed

his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing an oppressive term in the plea

agreement1 and by failing to argue for mitigating factors at sentencing.

On appeal, defendant largely reprises the same arguments raised before

Judge Nocella:

POINT I

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE PCR COURT'S DECISION TO DENY . . . DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

1 The plea agreement stated, "State will not prosecute [defendant's girlfriend] for CDS found in purse." A-3304-23 2 POINT II

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE PCR COURT'S DECISION TO DENY . . . DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER . . . DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE AT SENTENCING.

A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only upon showing "a

prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158

(1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462

(1992)), meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood

that [the] claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. To obtain relief

based on ineffective assistance grounds, a defendant is obliged to show not only

the particular manner in which counsel's performance was deficient, but also

that the deficiency prejudiced the right to a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the

Strickland two-part test in New Jersey).

Here, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his PCR

petition would ultimately succeed on the merits. As the judge found, the

transcript of the plea hearing reflected defendant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty. The State's agreement not to

A-3304-23 3 prosecute defendant's girlfriend was a favorable term of the plea, not a coercive

tactic.

Defendant also failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel at

sentencing. His attorney argued for mitigating factor twelve (the willingness of

the defendant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities), N.J.S.A. 2C:44 -

1(b)(12), and requested a lesser sentence. The sentencing judge rejected that

mitigating factor and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea

agreement.

For the first time on appeal, defendant argues his counsel should have

argued for mitigating factor nine (the defendant's character and attitude indicate

the defendant was unlikely to commit another offense), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(9).

We decline to consider an issue not properly presented to the trial court unless

the jurisdiction of the court is implicated or the matter concerns an issue of great

public importance. State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (quoting Nieder v.

Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)). Neither circumstance is present

here. Nevertheless, given the sentencing court's finding of aggravating factor

three (the risk that the defendant will commit another offense), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-

1(a)(3), we are unconvinced mitigating factor nine applied or that the addition

of that factor would have impacted defendant's sentence.

A-3304-23 4 Because there was no prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of

counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve defendant's PCR

claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.

Affirmed.

A-3304-23 5