STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL DANIELSÂ (10-03-0788, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0686-15T2

Background

Defendant Michael Daniels was convicted by a jury of multiple CDS offenses and sentenced to 7 years with a 3.5-year parole disqualifier; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
After summations but before charge, defense counsel discovered an inaccurate certified judgment of conviction (JOC) that overstated a prior conviction.
Defense moved for a mistrial, arguing the inaccurate JOC caused Daniels to elect not to testify out of fear of impeachment; judge offered to reopen the case to allow testimony and proposed a limiting instruction, which Daniels declined.
On direct appeal, the court considered and rejected the mistrial claim and found trial counsel was not ineffective for relying on the certified JOC and that Daniels suffered no prejudice.
Daniels filed a timely pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate the JOC earlier, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for raising the issue on direct appeal rather than preserving it for PCR.
The PCR court denied relief, finding the trial-counsel claim was procedurally barred as adjudicated on direct appeal and that appellate counsel’s strategy was reasonable; no evidentiary hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an inaccurate JOC before summation	State: Trial counsel’s reliance on a certified JOC was reasonable; claim was considered on direct appeal and no relief is warranted	Daniels: Counsel’s failure to investigate deprived him of the opportunity to testify and was deficient	Denied — claim adjudicated on direct appeal and counsel’s performance was not shown deficient or prejudicial
Whether Daniels was prejudiced because he elected not to testify due to the inaccurate JOC	State: No prejudice; judge offered to reopen the case and mitigatory instruction, which Daniels declined	Daniels: He would have testified but for the JOC error and would have affected the outcome	Denied — no reasonable probability of a different result shown; judge acted to mitigate harm
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for raising trial-counsel claim on direct appeal instead of preserving it for PCR	State: Raising the issue on direct appeal was a reasonable strategic choice and within competent representation	Daniels: Appellate counsel should have preserved the claim for PCR	Denied — strategic decision reasonable; no prima facie showing of ineffective appellate assistance
Whether an evidentiary hearing on PCR was required	State: No, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing entitling him to a hearing	Daniels: Hearing needed to develop facts about counsel’s investigation and his decision not to testify	Denied — no prima facie case established under Preciose/Strickland standards

Key Cases Cited

State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (establishes prima facie standard for entitlement to a PCR evidentiary hearing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applies Strickland standard in New Jersey criminal cases)