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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2810-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SILVER IQUCHUKWU,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________
Submitted January 26, 2026 – Decided February 10, 2026
Before Judges Sabatino and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 18-04-0282.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for defendant (Frank J. Pugliese, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Wayne Mello, Acting Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; Pablo Velastegui, Law Clerk, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Silver Iquchukwu appeals the trial court's February 16, 2024
order denying his petition for postconviction relief ("PCR") stemming from his
2019 conviction by a jury of aggravated sexual assault. We affirm.
We incorporate by reference the facts and procedural history recited in
our February 2022 opinion on direct appeal upholding defendant's conviction
and sentence. State v. Iquchukwu, No. A-1050-19 (App. Div. Feb. 14, 2022).
Briefly stated, defendant was found guilty of first-degree aggravated sexual
assault on a helpless or incapacitated victim, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7), after
sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman he encountered on a Jersey City street
on the evening of October 28, 2017. He was sentenced to a fifteen-year custodial
term, subject to parole ineligibility period mandated by the No Early Release
Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
During his trial, surveillance footage of defendant committing the sexual
violence at a tattoo parlor was played for the jury, along with a recorded
interview with a detective in which defendant admitted to digitally penetrating
the victim while she was incapacitated. On direct appeal, defendant argued the
A-2810-23 2 interview was inadmissible as a custodial interrogation under Miranda1
principles, alleging he had not voluntarily waived his rights. We rejected that
argument, as well as defendant's claim his sentence was excessive. Iquchukwu,
slip op. at 33. The Supreme Court denied certification. 252 N.J. 28 (2022)
Defendant currently appeals the denial of his PCR petition that concerns
that same interview. In particular, defendant focuses upon the detective's
comments in which he claimed to know defendant was guilty and claimed he
had incriminating evidence against defendant which, at the time, he did not.
Although defendant's trial counsel did not object to the detective's comments
when the interview recording was played for the jury, counsel did request a
curative instruction from the trial judge after the playback of the recording
concluded. Shortly after, the judge instructed the jury to note that the detective's
assertions of fact were not to be considered as truth, and that the jury may only
look to the facts that were proven by the witnesses and exhibits. She repeated
this instruction in the final charge to the jury.
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
A-2810-23 3 In his PCR petition, defendant argued that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to the detective's
comments before they were heard by the jury. He asserted the curative
instruction given was inadequate because the judge did not tell the jury to
"disregard" the comments and, therefore, he was prejudiced by the jury hearing
these assertions of defendant's guilt.
The PCR judge, who was the same judge who had presided over the trial,
denied defendant's petition, essentially for three reasons: (1) the curative
instruction was adequate; (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance
because he manifestly wanted the jury to hear the detective's comments as part
of his trial strategy; and (3) even if trial counsel had been ineffective, defendant
was not prejudiced by the alleged error because of the overwhelming amount of
evidence against him. The judge discerned no need for an evidentiary hearing.
Before us, defendant presents the following arguments for our
consideration:
POINT I
TRIAL COUNSEL'S UNTIMELY OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY INCLUDING LAY OPINION TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE ULTIMATE ISSUE OF DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE SERVED TO DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS
A-2810-23 4 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. THE TRIAL COURT'S CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO REMOVE THE UNDUE PREJUDICE. CONSEQUENTLY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED POST- CONVICTION RELIEF (PCR). ALTERNATIVELY, A REMAND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS WARRANTED. U. S. CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; N. J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10; R. 3:22-10B.
A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TIMELY TO THE INADMISSIBLE COMMENTS AND OPINIONS MADE BY THE DETECTIVE DURING DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATION.
B. ALTERNATIVELY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR THE PCR COURT TO RECONSIDER AND ASSESS WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE VIOLATION OF N.J.R.E. 701 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VIOLATION OF N.J.R.E. 403 WARRANTS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record and the
applicable law, we affirm the PCR denial, substantially for the sound reasons
expressed in Judge Mitzy Galis-Menendez's fourteen-page written opinion. We
add only a few succinct comments.
To establish a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective
assistance of trial counsel, a convicted defendant is required to satisfy the two-
A-2810-23 5 part test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984), demonstrating that: (1) counsel's
performance was deficient; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced
the accused's defense. Id. at 687; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987)
(adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey). In reviewing such
ineffective assistance claims, courts apply a strong presumption that defense
counsel "rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the
exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.
"[C]omplaints 'merely of matters of trial strategy' will not serve to ground a
constitutional claim of inadequacy . . ." Fritz, 105 N.J.at 54 (citation omitted);
see also State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357-59 (2009).
Here, we concur with the trial court's determination that defendant has not
presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance arising from the
presentation of the interview recording, in its entirety, to the jury. We
additionally deem unavailing his argument that the court's curative instruction
regarding the recording was ineffective. As the judge aptly noted, "[t]he simple
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-2810-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SILVER IQUCHUKWU,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________
Submitted January 26, 2026 – Decided February 10, 2026
Before Judges Sabatino and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 18-04-0282.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for defendant (Frank J. Pugliese, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Wayne Mello, Acting Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; Pablo Velastegui, Law Clerk, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Silver Iquchukwu appeals the trial court's February 16, 2024
order denying his petition for postconviction relief ("PCR") stemming from his
2019 conviction by a jury of aggravated sexual assault. We affirm.
We incorporate by reference the facts and procedural history recited in
our February 2022 opinion on direct appeal upholding defendant's conviction
and sentence. State v. Iquchukwu, No. A-1050-19 (App. Div. Feb. 14, 2022).
Briefly stated, defendant was found guilty of first-degree aggravated sexual
assault on a helpless or incapacitated victim, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7), after
sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman he encountered on a Jersey City street
on the evening of October 28, 2017. He was sentenced to a fifteen-year custodial
term, subject to parole ineligibility period mandated by the No Early Release
Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
During his trial, surveillance footage of defendant committing the sexual
violence at a tattoo parlor was played for the jury, along with a recorded
interview with a detective in which defendant admitted to digitally penetrating
the victim while she was incapacitated. On direct appeal, defendant argued the
A-2810-23 2 interview was inadmissible as a custodial interrogation under Miranda1
principles, alleging he had not voluntarily waived his rights. We rejected that
argument, as well as defendant's claim his sentence was excessive. Iquchukwu,
slip op. at 33. The Supreme Court denied certification. 252 N.J. 28 (2022)
Defendant currently appeals the denial of his PCR petition that concerns
that same interview. In particular, defendant focuses upon the detective's
comments in which he claimed to know defendant was guilty and claimed he
had incriminating evidence against defendant which, at the time, he did not.
Although defendant's trial counsel did not object to the detective's comments
when the interview recording was played for the jury, counsel did request a
curative instruction from the trial judge after the playback of the recording
concluded. Shortly after, the judge instructed the jury to note that the detective's
assertions of fact were not to be considered as truth, and that the jury may only
look to the facts that were proven by the witnesses and exhibits. She repeated
this instruction in the final charge to the jury.
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
A-2810-23 3 In his PCR petition, defendant argued that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to the detective's
comments before they were heard by the jury. He asserted the curative
instruction given was inadequate because the judge did not tell the jury to
"disregard" the comments and, therefore, he was prejudiced by the jury hearing
these assertions of defendant's guilt.
The PCR judge, who was the same judge who had presided over the trial,
denied defendant's petition, essentially for three reasons: (1) the curative
instruction was adequate; (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance
because he manifestly wanted the jury to hear the detective's comments as part
of his trial strategy; and (3) even if trial counsel had been ineffective, defendant
was not prejudiced by the alleged error because of the overwhelming amount of
evidence against him. The judge discerned no need for an evidentiary hearing.
Before us, defendant presents the following arguments for our
consideration:
POINT I
TRIAL COUNSEL'S UNTIMELY OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY INCLUDING LAY OPINION TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE ULTIMATE ISSUE OF DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE SERVED TO DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS
A-2810-23 4 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. THE TRIAL COURT'S CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO REMOVE THE UNDUE PREJUDICE. CONSEQUENTLY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED POST- CONVICTION RELIEF (PCR). ALTERNATIVELY, A REMAND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS WARRANTED. U. S. CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; N. J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10; R. 3:22-10B.
A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TIMELY TO THE INADMISSIBLE COMMENTS AND OPINIONS MADE BY THE DETECTIVE DURING DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATION.
B. ALTERNATIVELY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR THE PCR COURT TO RECONSIDER AND ASSESS WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE VIOLATION OF N.J.R.E. 701 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VIOLATION OF N.J.R.E. 403 WARRANTS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record and the
applicable law, we affirm the PCR denial, substantially for the sound reasons
expressed in Judge Mitzy Galis-Menendez's fourteen-page written opinion. We
add only a few succinct comments.
To establish a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective
assistance of trial counsel, a convicted defendant is required to satisfy the two-
A-2810-23 5 part test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984), demonstrating that: (1) counsel's
performance was deficient; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced
the accused's defense. Id. at 687; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987)
(adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey). In reviewing such
ineffective assistance claims, courts apply a strong presumption that defense
counsel "rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the
exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.
"[C]omplaints 'merely of matters of trial strategy' will not serve to ground a
constitutional claim of inadequacy . . ." Fritz, 105 N.J.at 54 (citation omitted);
see also State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357-59 (2009).
Here, we concur with the trial court's determination that defendant has not
presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance arising from the
presentation of the interview recording, in its entirety, to the jury. We
additionally deem unavailing his argument that the court's curative instruction
regarding the recording was ineffective. As the judge aptly noted, "[t]he simple
fact that the jury heard the [detective's] prejudicial statement prior to an
instruction by the court or objection by trial counsel does not [establish]
ineffective assistance of counsel, nor does it immediately taint the minds of the
A-2810-23 6 jurors." We agree with the trial court that the curative instruction was
sufficiently prompt and specific. State v. Herbert, 457 N.J. Super. 490, 509-11
(App. Div. 2019). Its phrasing was clearly adequate. The instruction was
appropriately repeated in the final jury charge.
In addition, trial counsel emphasized the impropriety of the detective's
comments three times in his summation. It is evident that trial counsel attempted
to use the detective's impropriety to his tactical advantage by arguing that the
detective's assertions of defendant's guilt pressured him into making unreliable
admissions of wrongdoing. The fact that the strategy did not succeed in securing
defendant a more favorable verdict is insufficient to prove actual prejudice under
the second prong of Strickland. 466 U.S. at 687.
Indeed, as the judge recognized, it is patent that the evidence of
defendant's guilt, as substantiated on the surveillance video of the attack and his
own admissions of guilt, which would be admissible even if trial counsel had
objected to the detective's remarks, were overwhelming. There was no need for
an evidentiary PCR hearing. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992).
To the extent defendant raises other arguments, they lack sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-2810-23 7