STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TALBERT D. HINTON (14-01-0098, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1377-19T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TALBERT D. HINTON a/k/a
YASIN R. BRYANT, TALBERT
HINTN, TAV HINTON,
HINTON D. TALBERT,
BRYANT YASIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 13, 2021 – Decided January 29, 2021
Before Judges Whipple and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 14-01-
0098.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on
the briefs).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Carey J. Huff,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
A jury convicted defendant Talbert Hinton of second-degree sexual
assault and endangering the welfare of a five-year-old girl, who lived in his
girlfriend's neighborhood. The trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate
prison term of eighteen years, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2. We incorporate by reference the facts and procedural history set
forth in our prior opinion, affirming defendant's convictions and sentence on
direct appeal. State v. Hinton, No. A-5529-14 (App. Div.) (slip op. 2-6), certif.
denied, 232 N.J. 373 (2017).
Thereafter, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief
(PCR), alleging trial counsel "did not represent him the right way," argued with
defendant, and failed to communicate with him. PCR counsel filed a brief on
defendant's behalf, explaining defendant claimed trial counsel was inef fective
by failing to: (1) conduct "any independent investigation"; and (2) "make
sufficient time to meet with him and discuss trial strategy." But defendant did
not provide any sworn statements or other proof detailing those assertions.
A-1377-19T1
2
Following argument, Judge Dennis R. O'Brien rendered a cogent oral
decision from the bench, denying PCR. The judge's decision, which spanned
thirteen transcript pages, squarely addressed the issues raised in view of the
governing legal principles. The judge memorialized his decision in a September
30, 2019 order.
Defendant now appeals, reprising the arguments raised before the PCR
judge. He raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
[]DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AS
GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART.
I, PAR[A]. 10 OF THE NEW JERSEY
CONSTITUTION.
POINT II
[]DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
POINT III
[]DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO DE NOVO
REVIEW, AND NO DEFERENCE SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION
BELOW.
In essence, defendant maintains trial counsel "failed to provide him with
a complete defense against the child sex abuse charges" for which he was
A-1377-19T1
3
convicted. Defendant claims his pretrial applications, including his pro se
motion for another assigned counsel, were "clear implication[s]" that trial
counsel was ineffective.
We have carefully considered defendant's arguments, in light of the
applicable law, and conclude the substantive claims asserted in points I and II
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge O'Brien in his well -
reasoned oral decision. We add only the following brief remarks.
Where, as here, the judge has not held a hearing, we agree with defendant's
contention in point III that our review generally is de novo. State v. Harris, 181
N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004). Nonetheless, "the factual findings underpinning the
legal conclusions are reviewed for clear error." Ibid. (internal quotation marks
omitted). And we review a judge's decision to grant or deny a defendant's
request for a hearing under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Preciose,
129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992); State v. L.G.-M, 462 N.J. Super. 357, 365 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 241 N.J. 514 (2020).
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he "has
presented a prima facie [case] in support of [PCR]," State v. Marshall, 148 N.J.
89, 158 (1997) (first alteration in original) (quoting Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462),
A-1377-19T1
4
meaning that a "defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his
. . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. For a defendant to obtain
relief based on ineffective assistance grounds, he is obliged to show not only the
particular manner in which counsel's performance was deficient, but also that
the deficiency prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the
Strickland two-part test in New Jersey) (Strickland/Fritz test).
In sum, the record support's the PCR judge's conclusion that defendant
failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his PCR claim will ultimately
succeed on the merits, and failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland/Fritz
test. As Judge O'Brien astutely recognized, defendant did "not assert how
counsel could have better investigated his case" where, as here, "the record
shows defendant did have an investigator working on his case." In that regard,
the judge noted defendant did not specify "which persons should have been
called to favorably testify for him or what they would have testified to if called."
While the PCR judge found the record was devoid of any information to
support defendant's claim that trial counsel failed to conduct an inves tigation,
the judge conversely found the record disproved defendant's claim that trial
counsel failed to communicate with him. The judge elaborated: "Defendant and
A-1377-19T1
5
trial counsel discussed his pro se motions to dismiss counsel and a subsequent
decision to keep counsel, to the cases which he pled and extensively about his
right to testify at trial. Defendant further confirmed that they spoke about his
right to appeal."
Because there was no prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of
counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve defendant's PCR
claims. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462.
Affirmed.
A-1377-19T1
6