STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHEN HERNANDEZ(09-09-1606, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4705-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Hernandez was convicted by a jury in 2010 of kidnapping, multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and sexual/contact offenses; sentenced to lengthy aggregate prison terms subject to NERA.
- Victim testified assaults occurred in defendant's car; defendant testified the acts were consensual.
- On direct appeal the Appellate Division affirmed convictions (unpublished), remanded for resentencing comments, and the Supreme Court denied certification.
- Hernandez filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failures to prepare him to testify; failures to object to certain testimony and prosecutor questions; failure to move to recuse the judge; cumulative errors).
- The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Hernandez failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to prepare Hernandez to testify | State: Hernandez testified knowingly and had no specific examples of inadequate preparation | Hernandez: Counsel met only once and did not prepare him for cross‑examination | Court: No deficient performance shown; Hernandez offered no specific prejudice; claim fails Strickland prong one and two |
| Failure to object to testimony that Hernandez refused consent to search his car | State: Any error was harmless because Hernandez explained refusal to search and jury could assess it | Hernandez: Testimony was improper and counsel should have objected / requested limiting instruction | Court: Error noted but harmless; no prejudice shown under Strickland prong two |
| Failure to object to prosecutor asking Hernandez to assess police credibility | State: Jury instructions governed credibility; error did not prejudice outcome | Hernandez: Questions improperly invited him to comment on officers' veracity | Court: Questions improper and would have been sustained, but with proper jury instructions no reasonable probability of different outcome; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of evidence about eluding police (motor vehicle violations) | State: Evidence was intrinsic to the charged events and admissible | Hernandez: Evidence was prejudicial and counsel should have objected under 404(b) or similar rules | Court: Evidence was intrinsic (not 404(b)) and admissible; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Failure to move to recuse trial judge; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issues on appeal | State: No basis existed for recusal; appellate counsel not ineffective for omitting unsuccessful issues | Hernandez: Prior judge involvement warranted recusal; appellate counsel should have challenged trial counsel's omissions | Court: No basis for recusal motion; appellate counsel not deficient because omitted issues lacked merit; defendant failed to make prima facie case for PCR |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applying Strickland in New Jersey)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie standard for PCR evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (distinguishing intrinsic evidence from Rule 404(b) evidence)
- State v. Marshall III, 148 N.J. 89 (when PCR evidentiary hearing may be unnecessary)
Affirmed: PCR denial without evidentiary hearing; Hernandez failed to demonstrate deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.