State of New Jersey v. Talbert D. Hinton

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Docket: A-1715-22
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1715-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TALBERT D. HINTON a/k/a YASIN R. BRYANT, TALBERT HINTN, TALBRET HINTON, TAV HINTON, HINTON D. TALBERT, and BRYANT YASIN,

Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________

Submitted March 5, 2024 – Decided March 27, 2024

Before Judges Rose and Smith.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 14-01- 0098.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John Joseph Bannan, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alecia Nathanne Woodard, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Talbert Hinton appeals from a November 30, 2022 Law

Division order denying his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). A

jury convicted defendant of second-degree sexual assault and endangering the

welfare of a five-year-old girl, who lived in his girlfriend's neighborhood. The

trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of eighteen years,

subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant's convictions on second degree

sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1) and endangering the welfare of a child,

N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), and the corresponding sentence. State v. Hinton, No. A-

5529-14 (App. Div. Sep. 11, 2017) (slip op. 2-6). A PCR court rejected

defendant's initial petition, and we affirmed. State v. Hinton, No. A-1377-19

(App. Div. Jan. 29, 2021). Defendant filed a second PCR, raising essentially

the same claims that he raised in his first PCR. The PCR court found defendant's

second petition was procedurally barred. We affirm.

A-1715-22 2 We incorporate the factual background and procedural history from our

opinion affirming defendant's convictions on direct appeal, Hinton, slip op. at

2-7, and from our opinion affirming denial of defendant's first PCR petition

Hinton, slip op. at 2-3.

Defendant filed his second PCR, the subject of this appeal, on November

21, 2021. Judge Michael A. Guadagno issued a thorough written statement of

reasons accompanying the November 30, 2022 order denying the petition. The

judge recounted defendant's unsuccessful direct appeal and denial of

certification by the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Hinton, 232 N.J. 373

(2018), and denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, Hinton v.

N.J., 139 S. Ct. 1348 (2019). Judge Guadagno then detailed defendant's

unsuccessful petition for habeus corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, noting that it was

denied by the District of New Jersey, Hinton v. Att'y Gen. of N.J., No. 18-14508,

2020 WL 6482932 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2020). The judge then recited the events of

defendant's first unsuccessful PCR, the findings of the first PCR judge, and our

affirmance.

Judge Guadagno then turned to the second PCR, noting that defendant

"present[ed] almost word-for-word the identical claims he made in his first pro

se PCR petition: '[defendant's] trial attorney . . . did not represent [him] well or

A-1715-22 3 to the best of her ability[;] acted unprofessionally[;] did not meet with or

communicate with [defendant] before trial[;] and did not contact or subpoena

any witnesses." At oral argument, second PCR counsel, exercising appropriate

candor before the court, acknowledged that defendant's second petition claims

presented no new evidence. Counsel still contended the old claims represented

"cumulative errors." In support of his order, Judge Guadagno found

"defendant's current claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel are

either identical or substantially equivalent to those raised in his first PCR

petition and are thus procedurally barred." We affirm, substantially for the

reasons stated in Judge Guadagno's concise statement of reasons. We add the

following brief comment.

Rule 3:22-5 states, "[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground

for relief is conclusive whether made in the proceedings resulting in the

conviction or in any post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to this rule or

prior to the adoption thereof, or in any appeal taken from such proceedings."

The record shows that defendant's claims on his second PCR are

indistinguishable from his previous direct appeal and PCR claims. The prior

adjudication of defendant's claims bars relief.

A-1715-22 4 For completeness, we note defendant failed to make a prima facie showing

of ineffective assistance of counsel, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688

(1984), and still has not shown how the alleged errors of counsel undermined

the reliability of the proceeding. State v. Drisco, 355 N.J. Super. 283, 289-90

(App. Div. 2002) (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.26

(1984)).

Affirmed.

A-1715-22 5