STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PAUL RODGERS(07-08-1322, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3641-15T4

Background

In 2007 defendant Paul Rodgers (a/k/a Rolando Betancourt) was tried by jury on aggravated assault, disarming a law enforcement officer, and attempted escape after an altercation in the Hudson County Administration Building in which an officer and defendant were injured.
Jury acquitted on disarming charge but convicted of aggravated assault and second-degree attempted escape; court found defendant a persistent offender and imposed an extended 20-year term (10 years parole ineligibility) for attempted escape, consecutive to an existing 40-year term; a concurrent 10-year term (5 years parole ineligibility) was imposed for aggravated assault.
Defendant appealed; this court affirmed convictions and remanded for resentencing; the Supreme Court denied certification. Defendant pursued multiple pro se and counseled post‑conviction relief (PCR) petitions alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and other defects.
The PCR court denied earlier petitions; defendant filed another PCR petition in 2016 alleging PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to assert various trial‑counsel errors (failure to present medical records, witnesses, objections, jury instructions, investigate, etc.).
The PCR court rejected the 2016 petition as procedurally barred under Rules 3:22‑4(b) and 3:22‑12(2)(c) and on the merits, concluding the claims were previously litigated or would not have changed the outcome; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant's 2016 PCR petition is barred as a successive petition	State: The petition is a second/subsequent petition and is procedurally barred under Rule 3:22‑4(b) unless a narrow exception applies	Rodgers: Claims PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial‑counsel errors; thus his successive petition should proceed	Court: Petition barred; Rodgers did not meet exceptions and many claims were previously litigated or would not have changed result
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for not raising trial‑counsel claims	State: Even if raised, claims lack merit under Strickland and would not have changed outcome	Rodgers: PCR counsel ignored instructions to raise numerous trial‑counsel failures (evidence, witnesses, objections, instructions)	Court: No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; lacks Strickland prejudice and performance failures
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the PCR petition	State: No hearing required because claims are procedurally barred or meritless on the papers	Rodgers: He presented records and allegations (medical records, video witness) warranting a hearing	Court: No hearing required; submitted materials would not establish a reasonable probability of different result
Whether any newly‑presented evidence (medical records, video) would have altered outcome	State: Records and video do not exculpate or show likely different verdict	Rodgers: Medical records and uncalled witness on video would support his version and undermine convictions	Court: Even if admitted, evidence would not have absolved Rodgers of assault or escape; no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopts and applies Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Rodgers, 209 N.J. 430 (2012) (Supreme Court denial of certification mentioned as procedural history)