STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VICTOR NORWOOD (11-08-1402, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3329-16T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VICTOR NORWOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted September 24, 2018 – Decided September 28, 2018
Before Judges Sabatino and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 11-08-
1402.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary R. Juliano,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Victor Norwood appeals from the trial court's denial of his
post-conviction relief ("PCR") petition without an evidentiary hearing. We
affirm, substantially for the sound reasons expressed in Judge Leslie-Ann M.
Justus's January 19, 2017 oral opinion.
The facts arise out of a motor vehicle stop of defendant in Asbury Park in
the early morning on May 6, 2011. A traffic officer observed defendant make a
right turn at a stop sign without appearing to come to a full stop. The officer
activated his lights and siren and pursued defendant, who increased his speed
and swerved erratically. After a pursuit of approximately half a mile, defendant
crashed into a parked vehicle. He ran from the accident scene and was
apprehended while trying to climb a fence. He was taken to police headquarters
and marijuana was found in his shirt sleeve.
Tried by a jury in 2012, defendant was convicted of second-degree
eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b) and fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-
2(a)(2). The trial judge separately found defendant guilty of simple possession
of under fifty grams of marijuana, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4) and reckless driving,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-96. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year custodial term on the
eluding offense, subject to a five-year parole ineligibility period, plus a
A-3329-16T2
2
concurrent eighteen-month term for the resisting arrest offense. The court also
suspended his driver's license and imposed fines.
On direct appeal, this court issued an unpublished opinion affirming
defendant's conviction but remanding for the limited purpose of merging the
reckless driving conviction with eluding. State v. Norwood, No. A-1326-12
(App. Div. May 1, 2015). The Supreme Court denied certification. State v.
Norwood, 223 N.J. 164 (2015).
In his PCR petition, defendant argued his trial counsel was ineffective in :
(1) failing to object to the admission of the marijuana evidence at the jury trial;
(2) failing to object to the court's omission of a standard instruction on burden
of proof after the jury was empaneled; and (3) failing to file a pretrial motion to
suppress the marijuana evidence.
Judge Justus, the PCR judge, 1 issued a detailed oral opinion explaining
why defendant's petition lacked merit. She also concluded that defendant's
arguments were procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4(a) and -5. The judge
found no need for an evidentiary hearing.
In his brief contesting the court's denial of PCR, defendant raised the
following points:
1
A different judge had presided over the jury trial.
A-3329-16T2
3
POINT ONE
MR. NORWOOD IS ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE
ADMISSION OF IRRELEVANT AND
PREJUDICIAL DRUG EVIDENCE, OBJECT TO AN
IMPROPER JURY CHARGE, OR FILE A MOTION
TO SUPPRESS.
POINT TWO
THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT
MR. NORWOOD'S PETITION WAS
PROCEDURALLY BARRED.
Having considered the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we find
no merit in defendant's arguments. The PCR judge's opinion is legally sound
and well supported by the record. We add only a few brief comments.
"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of
habeas corpus." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992). In cases such as
this one in which no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we review the PCR
judge's determinations de novo. State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 291
(App. Div. 2018) (citation omitted); see also State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540-
41 (2013).
Defendant in this case predicates his PCR application upon a claim that
his trial counsel was ineffective. Under the Sixth Amendment of the United
A-3329-16T2
4
States Constitution, persons accused of crimes are guaranteed the effective
assistance of legal counsel in their defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 686 (1984). To establish a deprivation of that right, a convicted defendant
must satisfy the two-part test enunciated in Strickland by demonstrating that: (1)
counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance actually
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).
Before applying these standards regarding the merits to the present appeal,
we first must consider the PCR judge's conclusion that defendant's claims are
procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4(a) and -5. We substantially concur with
her procedural rulings.
We agree that defendant's present claims of prejudice arising from the
admission of the marijuana evidence at trial are barred under Rule 3:22-5. That
is because our May 2015 opinion specifically rejected defendant's assertion that
the marijuana proof was erroneously admitted. State v. Norwood, No. A-1326-
12 (App. Div. May 1, 2015) (slip op. at 5) (specifically finding "no error . . . in
the admission of the marijuana evidence"). We further concur with the PCR
judge that defendant's claim of prejudicial error respecting the jury charge was
unsuccessfully raised on direct appeal, and likewise is precluded under Rule
A-3329-16T2
5
3:22-5. The only aspect of defendant's petition that is not procedurally barred
is his discrete claim that his trial counsel was deficient in failing to move to
suppress the fruits of the motor vehicle stop, an issue that was not developed in
the trial transcripts or on direct appeal. Because this unadjudicated issue
involves an allegation of ineffective counsel, we decline to bar it procedurall y
under Rule 3:22-4(a).
Turning to the merits, we are satisfied that defendant has neither
established under the two-part Strickland test deficient performance by his trial
attorney, nor actual prejudice from any claimed deficiencies. Counsel's decision
to not object to the marijuana evidence was clearly a strategic one. It enabled
counsel to impeach the arresting officer about details of his trial testimony and
the sequence of events leading up to the seizure of the marijuana. Such a
reasonable strategic choice is "virtually unassailable on ineffective assistance of
counsel grounds." State v. Cooper, 410 N.J. Super. 43, 57 (App. Div. 2009).
Counsel's alleged failure to object to the inadvertent omission of the term
"reasonable doubt" in the preliminary instructions to the jury is likewise
unavailing. The "reasonable doubt" concept was amply explained by the trial
judge in both the jury voir dire instructions and in the final jury charge. The
A-3329-16T2
6
instructions as a collective whole were not prejudicial. State v. Chapland, 187
N.J. 275, 289 (2006).
Lastly, defendant fails to demonstrate a suppression motion would have
any merit, even if counsel had filed one. The record shows the traffic officer
had a reasonable and articulable basis to stop defendant's car after he observed
it violating various traffic laws. State v. Bacome, 228 N.J. 94, 103 (2017). It is
"inconsequential" defendant was ultimately acquitted of failing to stop at a stop
sign. State v. Heisler, 422 N.J. Super. 399, 413 (App. Div. 2011).
There was no need for an evidentiary hearing on the PCR petition, as
defendant failed to establish a prima facie basis for relief. State v. Porter, 216
N.J. 343, 357 (2013). The PCR judge did not misapply her discretion in denying
a hearing. State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013) ("[W]e
review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to
proceed without an evidentiary hearing.").
Affirmed.
A-3329-16T2
7