STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CAMILO L. LOPEZ (06-08-1395, HUDSON AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3711-18
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CAMILO L. LOPEZ, a/k/a
CAMILO LOPEZ ALVAREZ
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted May 13, 2020 – Decided July 2, 2021
Before Judges Fuentes and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 06-08-1395.
Camilo Lopez, appellant pro se.
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
Defendant Camilo Lopez appeals from the order of the Criminal Part that
denied his second post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We affirm.
Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of murder, N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a)(1), and first degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3). On
September 13, 2007, the trial court merged these two offenses and sentenced
defendant to a term of fifty years, with thirty years of parole ineligibility. This
court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence, State v. Lopez, A-000488-
07 (App. Div. August 19, 2010), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 81 (2011). We
incorporate by reference the facts described by our colleagues in this
unpublished opinion. Id., slip op. at 2-5.
Defendant filed his first PCR petition thereafter, alleging ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. The court assigned counsel to represent him in the
prosecution of the petition and heard oral argument on August 30, 2012. In an
order entered on September 11, 2012, the PCR judge granted defendant's request
for an evidentiary hearing "to take testimony as to whether the bullet recovered
could have been fired from a revolver and to determine whether Willie Cortez's
potential trial testimony as to his involvement, or lack thereof, in the planning
and committing of the July 30, 1988 robbery and homicide would have added
A-3711-18
2
anything to the defense . . . ." The PCR judge denied the remaining claims raised
by defendant.
At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, the PCR judge considered the
testimonial evidence and the arguments of counsel and entered an order on May
21, 2013, rejecting defendant's application for relief based on the "bullet, [the]
testimony of Willie Cortez," and the claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel "at the previously conducted Wade1 hearing." This court affirmed the
PCR judge's decision. State v. Lopez, A-5281-12 (App. Div. March 10, 2015),
certif. denied, 223 N.J. 163 (2015).
Defendant filed this second PCR petition in November 2018, once again
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In an order dated February 21, 2019,
the Criminal Part judge assigned to this case denied this second PCR petition.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments in his
pro se brief:
POINT I
APPELLANT'S SECOND [PCR] SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GRANTED AS GOOD CAUSE WAS SHOW
[SIC]. (Not Raised Below).
1
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
A-3711-18
3
POINT II
TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
CRUCIAL FACTS OF THE CASE WITH
DEFENDANT AND THE JURY CAUSED
[DEFENDANT] SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICED AND
INJURIOUS EFFECTS ON THE JURY'S VERDICT
AND THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL. (Not Raised
Below).
A.) COUNSEL FAILED TO
INVESTIGATE READY [SIC]
AVAILABLE FACTS OF THE CASE TO
PREPARE AN "ACTUAL INNOCENCE"
DEFENSE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT DEPRIVED HIM OF A
FAIR TRIAL. (Not Raised Below).
B.) FAILURE TO SUBJECT THE
STATE'S CASE TO A MEANINGFUL
ADVERSARY CHALLENGE TEST TO
VALIDATE THE WORTHINESS OF MR.
HERNANDEZ'S FALSE TESTIMONY
DURING THE TRIAL FALLS FAR
BELOW WHAT A REASONABLE,
COMPETENT AND HONEST
ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE DONE
UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.
(Not Raised Below).
C.) COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE A
MOTION TO SUPPRESS MR.
HERNANDEZ'S PERJURED
TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE JURY,
WHICH BY DESIGN WAS TO
DELIVERATELY DECEIT [SIC] THE
JURORS AND ALLOWED TO GO ON
A-3711-18
4
UNMOLESTED, UNCORRECTED, AND
UNCHALLENGED CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE A
FAIR TRIAL. (Not Raised Below).
D.) A VIOLATION OF THE [U.S.
CONST., AMENDS V, VI AND IV]
AMENDMENTS GUARANTEED
RIGHTS TO PROVIDED BY THE [N.J.
CONST., ART. 1, ¶¶ 1 AND 10],
PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 10:6-2e. (Not
Raised Below).
E.) COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AFTER
THE STATE[']S CASE HAD CLOSED
UNDER R. 3:18-2, REQUIRES THE
CONVICTION TO BE VACATED. (Not
Raised Below).
We affirm the order of the Criminal Part because defendant has not
provided any basis to satisfy the standard for filing a second PCR petiti on as
codified in Rule 3:22-12(a)(2). Although the Criminal Part judge based her
ruling on different legal grounds, it is a long-settled principle of appellate
jurisprudence that "an appeal is taken from a trial court's ruling rather than
reasons for the ruling." State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div.
2011).
Affirmed.
A-3711-18
5