State of New Jersey v. K.D.C., A-2367-23

Defendant K.D.C. was indicted in 2015 and 2016 in Hudson County, New Jersey, for multiple child sexual assault and child endangerment offenses.
He pled guilty to several counts of endangering the welfare of a child under a plea agreement and was sentenced in 2017 to 25 years' imprisonment under the No Early Release Act.
His initial appeal was denied except for resentencing on a penalty issue; subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief (PCR) and appeals were also denied, with the N.J. Supreme Court denying certification in 2020 and 2022.
In August 2023, the defendant, self-represented, filed a second PCR petition, which was denied without appointment of counsel on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Defense counsel appeared post-denial to seek reconsideration, arguing for appointment of counsel and timeliness, but the PCR court denied reconsideration.
The present appeal concerns whether denying counsel at the second PCR stage was erroneous, given the allegedly timely petition and supposed merit to the ineffective assistance of prior counsel claims.

Issue	Defendant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of counsel for second PCR	K.D.C. argued he should have received counsel for his second PCR as it was timely and had potential merit.	State argued assignment of counsel is not automatic for second PCR and requires good cause and timeliness.	Denial of counsel affirmed; procedural and substantive requirements not met.
Timeliness of second PCR petition	K.D.C. argued the one-year limit should be tolled pending his petition for certification to the Supreme Court.	State asserted rules strictly prohibit tolling for pending appeals or relaxing deadlines.	Court held the time limits are strict with no tolling provision; petition was untimely.
Prima facie ineffective assistance by prior PCR counsel	Claimed prior PCR counsel failed to subpoena police records/hire investigator, and that these omissions warranted further investigation and counsel.	State contended claims were conclusory and not factually supported, failing to establish good cause or a substantial issue.	Court found claims speculative and lacking specificity or merit.
Need for evidentiary hearing on second PCR	Claimed that counsel could uncover substantive issues requiring a hearing.	State noted the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations for a hearing.	Court found no prima facie showing for hearing or for counsel.

State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1 (2002) (Assignment of counsel not required on second PCR absent good cause)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (Upholds strict enforcement of PCR filing deadlines)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (Adopts Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Milne, 178 N.J. 486 (2004) (No tolling of post-conviction relief deadlines for pending appeals)
State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583 (2002) (Emphasizes need for showing excusable neglect to relax time bars)