STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRE DEMELO(12-11-2782, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3903-15T2

Background

In 2013 Andre DeMelo pled guilty to one count of endangering the welfare of a child (second-degree charge) and was sentenced in August 2013 as a third-degree offender to three years' imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal.
Two years later DeMelo retained counsel to evaluate possible post-conviction relief (PCR) and sought a complete copy of the original discovery from the Essex County Prosecutor's Office; the office refused because the case was closed.
Defense counsel moved under Rules 3:13-2 to 3:13-4 and Marshall to compel production of the original discovery pre-petition so counsel could assess PCR options and avoid conflicts with trial counsel.
At the motion hearing counsel admitted he had not contacted DeMelo’s former trial attorney and characterized the request as routine practice in other counties; he limited the request to ordinary discovery, not prosecutor notes.
The trial court denied the motion, relying on State v. Marshall and the limits on Rule-based discovery for PCR; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (DeMelo)	Held
Whether Rules 3:13-2 to 3:13-4 authorize pre-petition PCR discovery from the prosecutor	Rules governing pretrial discovery do not extend to post-conviction proceedings; no Rule authorizes this relief	Rule 3:13-3 (continuing duty) and analogy to discovery rules warrant production of original discovery for PCR evaluation	Held for State: Rules do not authorize pre-petition PCR discovery
Whether courts may use inherent authority to compel discovery in PCR cases	Inherent authority is narrow and requires good cause and relevance; not met here	Marshall permits courts to compel discovery under inherent authority; DeMelo sought original discovery to investigate claims and conflicts	Held for State: Inherent authority exists but applies only in unusual cases on a showing of good cause and relevance; DeMelo did not meet that standard
Whether a generalized, case-independent request for original discovery to investigate potential PCR claims is permissible	Such generalized pre-petition fishing expeditions conflict with Marshall and PCR's purpose	Counsel needs original discovery to identify plausible PCR claims and to assess conflict issues	Held for State: Generalized, untethered requests are improper; PCR is to vindicate actual claims, not to investigate possibilities
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion	Trial court followed Marshall and properly exercised discretion	Denial deprived counsel of necessary materials to advise on PCR	Held for State: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly denied relief

Key Cases Cited

State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (1997) (Supreme Court recognizes limited inherent authority to order PCR discovery only on showing of good cause and relevance)
In re Custodian of Records, Criminal Div. Manager, 214 N.J. 147 (2013) (standard for appellate review of discretionary trial-court decisions)
State v. Ball, 381 N.J. Super. 545 (App. Div. 2005) (post-conviction discovery available when defendant presents a colorable claim)
State v. Madan, 366 N.J. Super. 98 (App. Div. 2004) (discussion of judicial discretion and its proper exercise)
State v. Rawls, 219 N.J. 185 (2014) (follow Supreme Court guidance even where language may be dicta)
State v. Dabas, 215 N.J. 114 (2013) (treatment of precedential guidance and its application)
State ex rel. W.C., 85 N.J. 218 (1981) (recognition of courts' inherent power to order discovery)

Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying pre-petition production of the prosecutor's original discovery.