STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES LEROY BAXTER (90-01-0093, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3261-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES LEROY BAXTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted October 15, 2020 – Decided December 10, 2020
Before Judges Whipple and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 90-01-0093.
James Baxter, appellant pro se.
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Narline Casimir, Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant James Baxter appeals pro se from a March 12, 2019, trial court
order denying his motions to compel discovery, for removal to federal court, to
correct an illegal sentence and assign counsel, as well as the denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR) and his amendments to his petition. We affirm
for the reasons stated by Judge Timothy Lydon in his written decision.
Defendant was convicted by a jury in 1991 with first-degree murder,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); first-degree
robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and 2C:2-6; third-degree theft by unlawful taking,
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) and 2C:2-6; and second-degree possession of a weapon for
an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) and 2C:2-6. He was sentenced to an
aggregate term of life imprisonment with a thirty-year term of parole
ineligibility, and an additional concurrent sentence of twenty years with ten
years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and
the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Baxter, 134 N.J. 568 (1993).
Defendant filed a PCR petition, which was denied and affirmed on appeal, and
the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Baxter, 161 N.J. 335 (1999).
Defendant filed this second petition for PCR and moved for a new trial in
September 2018, asserting newly-discovered evidence. The newly-discovered
evidence was that a cooperating witness, Ronald Granville, had a pending
indictment undisclosed at the time of trial that could have been used by
defendant during cross-examination to undermine Granville's credibility. The
A-3261-18T4
2
court denied defendant's second PCR petition as well as other requested relief
in an omnibus order of March 12, 2019. Defendant's appeal herein only
addresses the denial of his motion for a new trial and his motion to correct an
illegal sentence. He argues the following:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED
ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
[DEFENDANT'S] MOTION TO CORRECT AN
ILLEGAL SENTENCE.
In his March 2019 written decision, Judge Lydon concluded defendant's
arguments regarding Granville's undisclosed indictment are procedurally barred.
The court concluded:
In the amendment to your PCR, you raise a new
ineffective assistance claim. You assert that your
attorney "failed to make reasonable efforts to learn of
the State's key witness' criminal history.". . . . You
assert that "had the jury been informed of the
suppressed pending indictments, full criminal history,
and the sentence considerations Granville would be
receiving for his testimony resulting in bias, it is
'reasonably probable' that the result of the proceeding
would have been different.". . . . Your new ineffective
assistance claim is procedurally barred. Under Rule
3:22-4, any PCR claim "that reasonably could have
been raised in a prior proceeding" is barred from
A-3261-18T4
3
assertion in a future proceeding. Your trial was held
over [twenty-seven] years ago in February 1991. More
than three years passed between your trial and the
submission of your first PCR on August 31, 1994. You
had an opportunity during this period of time to identify
and substantiate any ineffective assistance claims
against your attorney. In fact, your first PCR made
several allegations of ineffective assistance, including
the claim that your attorney failed to inform the court
of a conflict of interest. You certainly could have
raised your new ineffective assistance claims as a part
of your first PCR. It is clear that your claim does not
rest on a previously unknown "factual predicate." Rule
3:22-4. Instead, you simply contend that your trial
attorney failed to explore Granville's alleged bias.
Because you were in a position to assert this argument
at a prior PCR proceeding, you are not permitted [to]
pursue it in this subsequent petition.
The court also concluded defendant's claims regarding Granville were
barred by Rule 3:22-4 because they could have been raised on direct appeal.
The court stated defendant's arguments regarding Granville lacked substantive
merit because "[i]n order to establish a Brady1 violation the defense must
demonstrate that (1) the prosecution failed to disclose the evidence, (2) the
evidence was of a favorable character for the defense; and (3) the evidence was
material. State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 311 (1981)." The court further stated
1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
A-3261-18T4
4
defendant had not met the test to demonstrate the evidence had "the propensity
to influence the outcome of the trial."
Finally, the court concluded defendant's assertions were not sufficient to
meet the Strickland/Fritz 2 standard for ineffective assistance claims. Based on
our review of the record, we discern no error requiring us to disturb the denial
of the petition nor the denial of a motion for a new trial.
We also reject defendant's second argument regarding sentencing. Based
on our review, the application of aggravating factor N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(1) did
not render the sentence illegal.
Affirmed.
2
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopting the standard set forth in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).
A-3261-18T4
5