MFC RESOURCES, INC. VS. JUERGEN HOMANN(L-9612-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3866-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- William Dykeman was convicted after a jury trial on multiple counts related to sexual assaults, criminal restraint, terroristic threats, and weapons possession; aggregate sentence 31 years with NERA parole ineligibility.
- Dykeman's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, with one remand for resentencing under State v. Natale and subsequent appellate affirmance after resentencing.
- Dykeman filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) raising ~24 grounds: evidentiary errors, indictment/severance issues, prosecutorial misconduct, need for discovery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and PCR counsel (including denial of choice of counsel, failure to call witnesses, poor investigation, and failure to seek replacement counsel).
- The trial judge denied the PCR petition in a written opinion without holding oral argument, concluding many claims were procedurally barred or meritless and that Strickland's two-prong test was not met for ineffectiveness claims.
- The judge acknowledged Parker's presumption favoring oral argument but stated argument would not help because Dykeman failed to make a prima facie case; Dykeman appealed that denial.
- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded solely because the trial judge failed to provide a Parker-compliant statement and should have allowed oral argument given the complexity and apparent merits of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dykeman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying oral argument on PCR petition | Denial proper because petitioner failed to establish prima facie case; judge may exercise discretion to deny argument | Oral argument should have been granted; judge must apply Parker factors and provide tailored reasons if denying | Reversed and remanded for oral argument; judge's terse rationale insufficient under Parker |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for denying defendant's choice or replacement of counsel | Many claims procedurally barred or meritless; Strickland not satisfied | Trial counsel and later counsel were ineffective for preventing defendant from securing chosen counsel; counsel breakdown warranted relief | Not finally decided on merits; remand ordered so PCR court can hear and assess under Strickland and related standards after argument |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call key witnesses / inadequate investigation | Claims speculative or previously available on direct appeal; no prejudice shown | Counsel failed adequate investigation and omitted key witnesses, producing prejudice to defense | Not decided on merits; remand for argument and reconsideration of prima facie ineffectiveness claims |
| Whether counsel/prosecutor misconduct (improper summation/comments) deprived defendant of fair trial | Prosecutorial comments either harmless or not established; previous appeals addressed some issues | Prosecutor made improper, prejudicial remarks; counsel were ineffective for not pursuing these errors | Not resolved on merits here; remanded for oral argument and further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (2012) (presumption favoring oral argument on PCR and requirement for tailored reasons if denied)
- State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382 (App. Div. 2001) (discusses trial court discretion regarding oral argument on PCR)
- State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005) (sentencing guidance relevant to remand on resentencing)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice and effect on reversal/remedy)