State of New Jersey v. Marvin Williams

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: A-1479-24
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1479-24

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARVIN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. ________________________

Submitted December 16, 2025 – Decided February 26, 2026

Before Judges Rose and Torregrossa-O'Connor.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 22-10-2544.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mark Zavotsky, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Theodore N. Stephens, II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Shep A. Gerszberg, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Marvin Williams pled guilty in April 2023 to one count of

second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), and thereafter was

sentenced to a five-year prison term with an eighty-five-percent parole

disqualifier pursuant to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). In June 2023,

defendant filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He now

appeals from an October 1, 2024 Law Division order denying his PCR petition

without an evidentiary hearing.

In his PCR petition, defendant contended his plea counsel provided

ineffective assistance because counsel was unprepared, did not adequately

consult defendant before the plea proceeding, and without defendant's consent,

improperly stipulated the victim suffered serious bodily injury—an essential

element of the offense—for purposes of establishing a factual basis. See

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) (reckless conduct requiring proof the defendant caused

"serious bodily injury"). The PCR court rejected defendant's claim without an

evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing plea

counsel's performance was deficient, the first component of an ineffective

assistance claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

On appeal, defendant argues:

DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED WHEN COUNSEL

A-1479-24 2 STIPULATED TO A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR CONSENT OF DEFENDANT WHO WOULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE ACCEPTED ENTERING THE STIPULATION OR THE PLEA.

....

[] DEFENDANT HAS MADE A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SUFFICIENTLY COMMUNICATE WITH HIM AND/OR HIS PREVIOUS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A STIPULATION TO A PLEA WITHOUT DEFENDANT'S CONSENT THEREBY NEGATING THE SUBMISSION OF AN ACCEPTABLE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGE AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

Because we determine, and the State now concedes, an evidentiary hearing was

warranted to determine whether, and to what extent, defendant consulted with

plea counsel and consented to counsel's stipulation on his behalf that the victim

suffered serious bodily injury, we vacate the October 1, 2024 order and remand

to the PCR court to conduct the hearing.

Given the parties' agreement, we need not deeply outline the facts and

procedural history and recount only the essential information pertinent to our

conclusion that remand for a hearing is required. The crux of defendant's

argument before the PCR court, and again here, centers upon his contention that,

despite conceding he possessed a loaded firearm when a bullet was discharged

A-1479-24 3 from that weapon into a building, he never intended to shoot and was unaware

anyone was struck by the bullet. Defendant avers he told his prior assigned

counsel throughout the discovery phase he insisted on reviewing evidence

confirming the victim's injuries before pleading guilty. However, at the time of

defendant's plea proceeding, newly assigned plea counsel apparently

unexpectedly substituted for prior counsel and represented defendant.1

Defendant claims, without consulting him or understanding the case,

particularly the alleged absence of evidence related to the nature and extent of

the victim's injuries, his new plea counsel stipulated that defendant caused

serious bodily injury to the victim during the plea proceeding without

defendant's authorization. This stipulation, according to defendant, constituted

ineffective assistance of counsel and mandates his plea be vacated.

We are satisfied the record of the plea proceedings, during which

defendant appeared to resist admitting he caused serious bodily before his

counsel conceded the fact, together with defendant's representations before the

PCR court, warranted an evidentiary hearing to further explore whether, and to

what extent, his second attorney consulted with defendant, reviewed the case

1 Indeed, the record reflects defendant was represented by prior counsel in the morning, but first counsel had a medical emergency and another assigned counsel represented him in the afternoon plea proceeding. A-1479-24 4 and discovery, and was authorized by defendant to stipulate that defendant

caused bodily injury. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992) (an

evidentiary hearing is required on PCR claim when defendant demonstrates its

necessity to develop a sufficient factual record).

We do not suggest a preferred result on remand.

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

A-1479-24 5