STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CLIFFORD HARRIS (96-05-0548, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: June 20, 2018
• Docket: A-0677-16T4
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0677-16T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CLIFFORD HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Argued telephonically June 7, 2018 – Decided June 20, 2018

Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 96-05-0548.

Clifford Harris, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Michael A. Monahan, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Clifford Harris appeals from the August 29, 2016

Law Division order denying his second petition for post-conviction

relief (PCR). Because the trial judge failed to make any

meaningful findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of

his decision, we are constrained to reverse and remand for

further proceedings.

After a jury found defendant guilty of murder, possession

of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of

a weapon, the trial court sentenced defendant to a thirty-year

term of imprisonment, with a thirty-year period of parole

ineligibility, for murder, and a concurrent four-year term for

unlawful possession of a weapon.1 On defendant's direct appeal,

we affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court

denied certification. State v. Harris, No. A-2261-97 (Oct. 23,

2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 629 (2001).

Defendant subsequently filed a petition for PCR in which he

alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective in various

respects. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial

court denied defendant's petition, and we affirmed this

determination. State v. Harris, No. A-0728-04 (Mar. 28, 2006).

1 The court merged defendant's conviction for possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose into his conviction for murder.

2 A-0677-16T4 In June 2016, defendant filed his second petition for PCR.

Among other things, defendant alleged that his sentence was illegal

because the trial court failed to: (1) grant him appropriate

"good time" credits against his period of parole ineligibility;

(2) properly apply this court's decision in Merola v. Department

of Corrections, 285 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 1995); and (3)

take into account certain amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b) that

he believed affected the constitutionality of his sentence.

Without conducting oral argument or a hearing, the trial

court denied defendant's petition in a one-sentence order that

merely stated: "ORDERED, that the petition for [PCR] is hereby

denied for failure to allege on its face a basis to preclude

dismissal under N.J.C.R. [sic] 3:22-4(b)." The court did not

make any findings of fact concerning defendant's contentions,

state what specific arguments it considered, or explain its

reasoning or conclusions of law in connection with its terse

ruling. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant presents the same contentions he raised

before the trial court. He asserts that he "is entitled to

'good time' credits which were already entered on his official

classification records, to complete his entire thirty-year

sentence, or, in the alternative, a hearing to determine whether

the denial of the application of these credits violates the

3 A-0677-16T4 constitutions of New Jersey and the United States." However, we

are unable to review this issue because the trial court ignored

its duty to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

No one – not the parties and not this court – can properly

function or proceed without some understanding of why a judge

has rendered a particular ruling. See Curtis v. Finneran, 83

N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring trial court to clearly state

its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal

conclusions). The failure to provide findings of fact and

conclusions of law "constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the

attorneys and the appellate court." Ibid. (quoting Kenwood Assocs.

v. Bd. of Adjustment, Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div.

1976)). As our colleague, Judge Jose Fuentes, recently stated,

"our function as an appellate court is to review the decision of

the trial court, not to decide the motion tabula rasa." Estate of

Doerfler v. Federal Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018)

(slip op. at 5).

While this was defendant's second petition for PCR, its

resolution still "required a careful analysis and the requisite

findings to insure a just result. Fact-finding is just that.

It is not a recitation of [a court rule] but a clear and concise

demonstration that the litigant[] [has] been heard and [his]

4 A-0677-16T4 arguments considered. Justice requires no less." Bailey v. Bd.

of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001).

Accordingly, we reverse the August 29, 2016 order. We

remand this matter with the direction that the trial court

consider defendant's contentions, and make detailed findings of

fact and conclusions of law on all the issues raised, within

forty-five days of the date of this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

5 A-0677-16T4