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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0684-16T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COREY BATTS, a/k/a JAMIL WARD,
Defendant-Appellant. ________________________
Submitted October 23, 2018 – Decided November 30, 2018
Before Judges Rothstadt and Gilson.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Accusation No. 07-09-1302 and Indictment Nos. 06-12-3945 and 08-06-1690.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Corey Batts appeals from a June 29, 2016 order denying his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following an evidentiary hearing. In
his petition, defendant contended that he should be allowed to withdraw guilty
pleas he entered in 2007, and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move
to withdraw those pleas. We disagree and affirm.
I
Over the course of several years, defendant was charged with a number of
crimes. In 2006, defendant was indicted for four crimes related to his possession
of heroin. In 2007, defendant was charged in an accusation with six crimes
related to his possession of heroin.
In September 2007, defendant pled guilty to two counts of third-degree
possession of heroin with intent to distribute within a school zone, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-7, and one count of fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(2).
One of the pleas for possession with intent to distribute was a charge from the
2006 indictment, while the other two pleas were charges from the 2007
accusation. In the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend an aggregate
sentence of five years in prison with three years of parole ineligibility.
A-0684-16T3 2 At the time that defendant pled guilty in 2007, he was also facing federal
criminal charges. In connection with his 2007 pleas, defendant agreed to
cooperate with state authorities with the understanding that his successful
cooperation might result in a lower sentence. Defendant also agreed to
cooperate with federal authorities. A condition of defendant's cooperation
agreement with the State was that he not engage in further criminal activity.
After pleading guilty in September 2007, defendant was released and given an
extended sentencing date so that he could provide cooperation.
In January 2008, defendant was found to be in possession of a stolen car.
He was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. As a result of that
arrest and charge, the State terminated its cooperation agreement with
defendant.
In April 2009, defendant pled guilty to third-degree receiving stolen
property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7. In the related plea agreement, the State agreed to
recommend that defendant be sentenced to three years in prison. The State also
agreed to recommend that the sentence run concurrent to defendant's pending
sentences for the guilty pleas he entered in 2007.
On August 4, 2009, defendant was sentenced on all four of his pending
state convictions. For his convictions for possession of heroin with intent to
A-0684-16T3 3 distribute in a school zone, defendant was sentenced to five years in prison with
three years of parole ineligibility. For his conviction for resisting arrest,
defendant was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. For his conviction for
receiving stolen property, defendant was sentenced to three years in prison. All
of those sentences were run concurrent to each other. Those sentences were also
to run concurrent to any federal sentence.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal from any of his convictions or
sentences imposed in 2009. Instead, in May 2014, defendant filed a petition for
PCR. He was assigned counsel. The PCR court heard oral argument and granted
an evidentiary hearing. Following that hearing, on June 29, 2016, the PCR court
entered an order denying defendant's petition.
At the PCR hearing, defendant testified and asserted that he should be
allowed to withdraw the guilty pleas entered in 2007 because his cooperation
with federal authorities prevented him from cooperating with state authorities.
Defendant also contended that he was not given time to complete his cooperation
agreement with the State because he was working with federal authorities and
he was then arrested for receiving stolen property.
The PCR court rejected defendant's arguments. The court found that
defendant had entered into cooperation agreements with state and federal
A-0684-16T3 4 authorities. The court also found that the agreement with the State was
conditioned on defendant not engaging in future criminal activity. The court
then found that defendant had breached his cooperation agreement with the State
in January 2008 when he was arrested and charged with receiving stolen
property. Thus, the PCR court found that defendant had no legitimate basis to
withdraw his 2007 guilty pleas and his counsel had not been ineffective in not
filing a motion to withdraw those pleas.
II
On appeal, defendant makes one argument, which he articulates as
follows:
POINT I – MR. BATTS IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
More specifically, defendant argues that although the PCR court held an
evidentiary hearing, the hearing was limited in purpose and defendant is entitled
to a more complete evidentiary hearing.
We use a "deferential standard of review" on an appeal of a denial of a
PCR petition following an evidentiary hearing. State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518,
542-43 (2013). Accordingly, the factual findings made by a PCR court
A-0684-16T3 5 following an evidentiary hearing will be accepted if they are based on "sufficient
credible evidence in the record." Id. at 540. Legal conclusions are reviewed de
novo. Id. at 540-41. A defendant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a
PCR petition if he or she establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, "there
are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by reference to the
existing record," and the court determines "that an evidentiary hearing is
necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216
N.J. 343, 354 (2013).
Here, defendant's contention depends on his ability to establish a prima
facie showing of grounds to withdraw his guilty plea or ineffective assistance of
counsel. To justify withdrawing his guilty plea, defendant must show that the
State breached a material representation made in connection with his plea, see
State v. Rosario, 391 N.J. Super. 1, 13 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Santobello v.
New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)), or that he has a basis for withdrawing his
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-0684-16T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COREY BATTS, a/k/a JAMIL WARD,
Defendant-Appellant. ________________________
Submitted October 23, 2018 – Decided November 30, 2018
Before Judges Rothstadt and Gilson.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Accusation No. 07-09-1302 and Indictment Nos. 06-12-3945 and 08-06-1690.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Corey Batts appeals from a June 29, 2016 order denying his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following an evidentiary hearing. In
his petition, defendant contended that he should be allowed to withdraw guilty
pleas he entered in 2007, and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move
to withdraw those pleas. We disagree and affirm.
I
Over the course of several years, defendant was charged with a number of
crimes. In 2006, defendant was indicted for four crimes related to his possession
of heroin. In 2007, defendant was charged in an accusation with six crimes
related to his possession of heroin.
In September 2007, defendant pled guilty to two counts of third-degree
possession of heroin with intent to distribute within a school zone, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-7, and one count of fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(2).
One of the pleas for possession with intent to distribute was a charge from the
2006 indictment, while the other two pleas were charges from the 2007
accusation. In the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend an aggregate
sentence of five years in prison with three years of parole ineligibility.
A-0684-16T3 2 At the time that defendant pled guilty in 2007, he was also facing federal
criminal charges. In connection with his 2007 pleas, defendant agreed to
cooperate with state authorities with the understanding that his successful
cooperation might result in a lower sentence. Defendant also agreed to
cooperate with federal authorities. A condition of defendant's cooperation
agreement with the State was that he not engage in further criminal activity.
After pleading guilty in September 2007, defendant was released and given an
extended sentencing date so that he could provide cooperation.
In January 2008, defendant was found to be in possession of a stolen car.
He was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. As a result of that
arrest and charge, the State terminated its cooperation agreement with
defendant.
In April 2009, defendant pled guilty to third-degree receiving stolen
property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7. In the related plea agreement, the State agreed to
recommend that defendant be sentenced to three years in prison. The State also
agreed to recommend that the sentence run concurrent to defendant's pending
sentences for the guilty pleas he entered in 2007.
On August 4, 2009, defendant was sentenced on all four of his pending
state convictions. For his convictions for possession of heroin with intent to
A-0684-16T3 3 distribute in a school zone, defendant was sentenced to five years in prison with
three years of parole ineligibility. For his conviction for resisting arrest,
defendant was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. For his conviction for
receiving stolen property, defendant was sentenced to three years in prison. All
of those sentences were run concurrent to each other. Those sentences were also
to run concurrent to any federal sentence.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal from any of his convictions or
sentences imposed in 2009. Instead, in May 2014, defendant filed a petition for
PCR. He was assigned counsel. The PCR court heard oral argument and granted
an evidentiary hearing. Following that hearing, on June 29, 2016, the PCR court
entered an order denying defendant's petition.
At the PCR hearing, defendant testified and asserted that he should be
allowed to withdraw the guilty pleas entered in 2007 because his cooperation
with federal authorities prevented him from cooperating with state authorities.
Defendant also contended that he was not given time to complete his cooperation
agreement with the State because he was working with federal authorities and
he was then arrested for receiving stolen property.
The PCR court rejected defendant's arguments. The court found that
defendant had entered into cooperation agreements with state and federal
A-0684-16T3 4 authorities. The court also found that the agreement with the State was
conditioned on defendant not engaging in future criminal activity. The court
then found that defendant had breached his cooperation agreement with the State
in January 2008 when he was arrested and charged with receiving stolen
property. Thus, the PCR court found that defendant had no legitimate basis to
withdraw his 2007 guilty pleas and his counsel had not been ineffective in not
filing a motion to withdraw those pleas.
II
On appeal, defendant makes one argument, which he articulates as
follows:
POINT I – MR. BATTS IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
More specifically, defendant argues that although the PCR court held an
evidentiary hearing, the hearing was limited in purpose and defendant is entitled
to a more complete evidentiary hearing.
We use a "deferential standard of review" on an appeal of a denial of a
PCR petition following an evidentiary hearing. State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518,
542-43 (2013). Accordingly, the factual findings made by a PCR court
A-0684-16T3 5 following an evidentiary hearing will be accepted if they are based on "sufficient
credible evidence in the record." Id. at 540. Legal conclusions are reviewed de
novo. Id. at 540-41. A defendant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a
PCR petition if he or she establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, "there
are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by reference to the
existing record," and the court determines "that an evidentiary hearing is
necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216
N.J. 343, 354 (2013).
Here, defendant's contention depends on his ability to establish a prima
facie showing of grounds to withdraw his guilty plea or ineffective assistance of
counsel. To justify withdrawing his guilty plea, defendant must show that the
State breached a material representation made in connection with his plea, see
State v. Rosario, 391 N.J. Super. 1, 13 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Santobello v.
New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)), or that he has a basis for withdrawing his
guilty plea. State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 156 (2009); see also R. 3:21-1. To
withdraw his plea post-sentencing, defendant must show a manifest injustice.
R. 3:21-1. In making that determination, the court considers and balances four
factors: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a colorable claim of innocence;
(2) the nature and strength of defendant's reasons for withdrawal; (3) the
A-0684-16T3 6 existence of a plea bargain; and (4) whether withdrawal would result in unfair
prejudice to the State or unfair advantage to the accused." Slater, 198 N.J. at
157-58.
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
satisfy the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984), and later adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42,
58 (1987). Under that test, a defendant must prove (1) "counsel made errors so
serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the
defendant by the Sixth Amendment," and (2) "the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; see also Fritz, 105 N.J. at
58.
Here, defendant cannot show that the State breached its plea agreement.
The written plea agreement provided that defendant would be sentenced t o an
aggregate term of five years in prison with three years of parole ineligibility.
Defendant received the benefit of that bargain. Nevertheless, defendant argues
that under his cooperation agreement, he might have received a lower sentence.
He further contends that there is a need for a hearing to develop what the
cooperation agreement provided. The PCR court, however, conducted a hearing
and found that the cooperation agreement with the State was conditioned on
A-0684-16T3 7 defendant not engaging in further criminal activity. The court then found that
defendant breached that agreement when he was arrested, charged, and
convicted of receiving stolen property.
Defendant contends that the PCR court improperly determined that the
conditions of the cooperation agreement were part of his plea. Furthermore,
defendant argues that even if the conditions were part of the plea, the conditions
were too vague and it would be unfair to enforce them. We are not persuaded
by these arguments. The PCR court conducted an adequate hearing to find that
there was a cooperation agreement connected to defendant's plea, the agreement
was conditioned on defendant not engaging in further criminal activity, and
defendant breached that condition. There was sufficient credible evidence
presented at the evidentiary hearing to support those findings.
Given that defendant breached his cooperation agreement, he cannot show
that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty pleas. In that regard, defendant does
not contend that he was innocent of the crimes that he pled guilty to in 2007.
Moreover, as already noted, defendant received the sentence that was
recommended by the State at the time of his plea. Accordingly, no manifest
injustice has occurred. Similarly, defendant has not made a prima facie showing
of ineffective assistance of counsel since there was no showing of a basis for
A-0684-16T3 8 making the motion to withdraw the guilty plea or that the motion had a
reasonable probability of success.
Affirmed.
A-0684-16T3 9