STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ZENG L. CHEN (10-10-1964, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2050-20

Defendant Zeng L. Chen was arrested after a June 16, 2010 double-homicide/robbery; jury convicted him in 2015 of multiple counts including first‑degree murder and armed robbery; sentence included life with an 85% parole disqualifier.
Approximately four-and-a-half years elapsed between arrest and trial. The delay included defendant’s severance motion, pretrial motions (including suppression), multiple judicial reassignments, and forensic work by experts.
Defendant filed a PCR petition in December 2018 claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the indictment on speedy‑trial grounds; the PCR court denied relief as procedurally barred under Rule 3:22‑4.
The Appellate Division found the procedural‑bar ruling erroneous because the record did not show the claim could reasonably have been raised on direct appeal and noted Preciose's policy favoring PCR for ineffective‑assistance claims.
The court vacated the PCR denial and remanded for the Law Division to: catalogue discrete periods of delay, apply the Barker four‑factor speedy‑trial test in the context of the two‑prong Strickland ineffective‑assistance framework, and decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted under Preciose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR petition is procedurally barred under Rule 3:22‑4	State: Petition is barred because claim could have been raised on direct appeal	Chen: Claim could not reasonably have been raised on direct appeal; PCR is proper	Vacated PCR denial — petition not barred on record; remand for factfinding
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on speedy‑trial grounds and whether an evidentiary hearing is required	State: Delay attributable to both parties and legitimate case complexities; no established prima facie showing	Chen: Four‑plus year delay and counsel’s omission meet Strickland prima facie; needs hearing	Remanded: trial court must analyze Barker factors within Strickland, make specific findings, and determine if a Preciose hearing is needed (no ruling on merits)

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR is the preferred forum for ineffective‑assistance claims; prima facie/evidentiary hearing standard)
State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013) (rejects bright‑line try‑or‑dismiss rule; discusses one‑year presumption and case‑by‑case Barker analysis)