STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. YOHAN BALCACER (12-02-0302, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5117-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
YOHAN BALCACER, a/k/a
JOHAN RIBAS-BALCACER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted May 30, 2019 – Decided June 28, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 12-02-0302.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant
(Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal
Assistant, on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Yohan Balcacer appeals from the April 17, 2018 Law Division
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) after an evidentiary
hearing. We affirm.
I.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree possession of imitation
controlled dangerous substances with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-11, and
second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b). He was acquitted of twelve other
offenses. On July 25, 2014, Judge James J. Guida, J.S.C., sentenced defendant to
four years with two years of parole ineligibility on the possession with intent charge,
to be served consecutively to eight years imprisonment with four years of parole
ineligibility on the eluding charge. Defendant's appeal was denied. State v.
Balcacer, No. A-0264-14 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2016). The Supreme Court denied
certification on February 7, 2017. State v. Balcacer, 229 N.J. 157 (2017).
Thereafter, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition and brief, and his assigned counsel
also filed a brief on his behalf. Judge Guida coincidentally was the judge who heard
the PCR petition. He initially found defendant had made a prima facie case of
ineffective assistance and ordered an evidentiary hearing. After the evidentiary
hearing, however, Judge Guida denied defendant relief.
A-5117-17T4
2
The details of the underlying offenses are set forth in the unpublished opinion.
See Balcacer, slip op. at 2-6. Suffice it to say defendant fled the scene of a $100,000
drug deal/robbery plan involving undercover agents. He drove into the Bronx and
police broke pursuit; he was apprehended some days later. At trial, a co-defendant
testified against him. Obviously, the two were acquainted. Defendant was identified
by others as well, including the undercover officer.
At trial, Judge Guida queried defendant fully regarding his waiver of his right
to testify. In addition, the judge asked defendant if he wanted the jury to be
instructed that defendant's waiver of his right to testify was a factor not to be
discussed during deliberation. See Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Defendant's
Election Not to Testify" (rev. May 4, 2009). Defendant confirmed he wanted that
instruction given, and the judge had defendant sign a form to that effect.
Following denial of his appeal, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition arguing
his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to request a Wade1 hearing,
preventing him from testifying at trial, and deciding not to call certain alibi witnesses
at trial. At the January 2018 PCR hearing, the trial court found, by oral decision,
that given the co-defendant's acquaintance with defendant, any challenge to
identification, such as by a motion for a Wade hearing, would have been futile. The
1
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
A-5117-17T4
3
judge also recalled discussing with defendant his waiver of his right to testify, and
his request that the jury be given the Model Jury Charge. He concluded the record
simply did not support a claim that defendant's waiver was not knowing and
intelligent. As for the final issue regarding alibi witnesses, the trial court reserved
judgment.
A couple weeks after the PCR hearing, the judge filed a written decision
ordering an evidentiary hearing to address whether counsel had been ineffective in
failing to call two alibi witnesses. This issue arose during the trial, and in fact,
counsel had investigated their viability. In support of defendant's PCR petition, the
witnesses submitted two affidavits. They were in English even though neither spoke
the language. One alibi witness was an elderly aunt of defendant, who suffered from
dementia. The other was his brother. Both required the aid of an interpreter in court.
At the evidentiary hearing, defendant's aunt said she could not recall being at
the trial, nor could she remember the written statement she had provided to
defendant. She claimed she recalled, however, that on October 18, 2011, she saw
defendant in his mother's house in New York City at 11:45 in the morning. This was
the same time and date as the aborted drug deal/robbery.
Defendant's brother testified that he remembered being at trial, and had
spoken with trial counsel. He said on the date of the crime defendant had
A-5117-17T4
4
accompanied him to complete a construction job at approximately 1:00 p.m. in New
York City. The notary who witnessed the alibi witnesses' signatures was not called.
Presumably, it was the notary who translated the witnesses' statements into English.
Defendant also testified at the hearing, claiming he only met with trial counsel
three times. When he asked her to call alibi witnesses on his behalf, she allegedly
told him it was unnecessary and that she "got this," meaning she would take care of
it.
Defendant's trial counsel recalled she had met with defendant over twenty
times prior to trial. She also stated defendant acknowledged to her that he was
present at the scene of the crime. It was not until after jury selection had begun that
he told her his brother and aunt were available to testify as alibi witnesses. When
counsel reminded defendant that he had acknowledged being at the scene of the
crime, he claimed that she had misunderstood him because he was not there.
Counsel hired an investigator, who confirmed that defendant's aunt could not
remember anything. Counsel spoke with defendant's brother, and concluded that his
proposed testimony made no sense. Accordingly, she decided not to call either
witness as a strategic decision informed by ethical considerations. Counsel "realized
that when [defendant] told me at first that he was there [that] was the truth and I was
not going to present witnesses that I believe[d] were not telling the truth."
A-5117-17T4
5
In an April 2018 decision, the judge found that the purported alibi witnesses'
testimony was not credible because it was "uncorroborated, self-serving, and . . .
contradicted by common experience and reason." The judge did find, however, trial
counsel's testimony credible, and her rationale for not calling the alibi witnesses to
be reasonable trial strategy. She had an ethical obligation not to present false
evidence to the court and had to consider whether jurors would also find their
testimony patently incredible. Thus, the judge concluded the decision not to call the
alibi witnesses did not meet the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
On appeal, defendant raises four points:
POINT I
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE
SHE FAILED TO PRESENT AN AVAILABLE ALIBI
DEFENSE.
POINT II
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING
TO CHALLENGE THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
AT A WADE/HENDERSON HEARING.
POINT III
THE DEFENDANT WAS COERCED INTO
FORGOING HIS TESTIMONY DUE TO TRIAL
COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
POINT IV
THE CUMULATION OF ERRORS BY TRIAL
COUNSEL RESULTED IN A FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFAIR PROCESS.
A-5117-17T4
6
A petition for post-conviction relief is not "a substitute for direct appeal . . .
nor an opportunity to re-litigate cases already decided on the merits[.]" State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992) (citations omitted). When a petitioner claims
ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, he must satisfy two prongs:
first, that counsel's performance was deficient, and secondly, that but for those
errors, he would not have been convicted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687, 694 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).
Counsel's decision not to present the alibi witnesses was required by ethical
considerations. In addition, it was a sound strategic decision because neither would
have been a credible witness. Defendant's aunt suffered from dementia and the
likelihood that she would be believed was slim to none. The brother's testimony
made little sense. Therefore, it was better to have no witnesses than witnesses who
would cause the defense to lose all credibility.
Counsel's decision fulfilled her ethical responsibilities to the system. See In
re Seelig, 180 N.J. 234, 254-55 (2004). A lawyer has the right to refuse to present
evidence he or she believes is false. RPC 3.3(c). A lawyer cannot cooperate in the
commission of perjury, which includes falsification of evidence or assisting
witnesses in giving false testimony. See RPC 3.4(b). We do not consider
A-5117-17T4
7
defendant's argument on this point to warrant further discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
II.
Defendant next contends counsel was ineffective because she failed to
demand a Wade hearing and failed to address any issues under State v. Henderson,
208 N.J. 208, 288-90 (2011). Under the circumstances as revealed in the trial
transcripts, however, Judge Guida's decision was entirely correct. It would have
made no sense for counsel to challenge identification by a co-defendant. The co-
defendant may have had a motive to fabricate, but that has nothing to with the
validity of defendant's identification. Additionally, the undercover detective had
seen defendant on several occasions. Although defendant argued at trial that the
officer could not have seen defendant clearly through tinted windows, the officer
said he saw him through a clear glass windshield, and made a point of seeing him
enough to be able to identify him.
Thus, as the judge pointed out, it would have been futile for counsel to have
requested these hearings. There was nothing ineffective about failing to make
applications that would have been denied. See State v. Drew, 383 N.J. Super. 185,
202 (App. Div. 2006).
A-5117-17T4
8
III.
Defendant's contention that he was inadequately advised with regard to his
right to testify, or coerced into giving up the right, borders on the frivolous. The
judge extensively reviewed the decision with him, and ultimately, defendant on the
record confirmed that he understood his choices, had decided not to take the stand,
and wanted the Model Jury Charge given. This point is so lacking in merit as to not
warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
IV.
Defendant argues that the aggregation of errors counsel committed at trial
warrant relief. Counsel did not commit any errors, and in fact, was remarkably
successful in obtaining acquittal of the most serious charges against defendant. As
a result, despite having been indicted on at least one first-degree offense and many
second-degree offenses, defendant had already been released from imprisonment at
the time of his PCR hearing. This argument also is so lacking in merit as to not
warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-5117-17T4
9