STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OMAR BARRETT (12-06-0459, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0384-15T1

On Oct. 4, 2011, masked suspects approached a BMW in Elizabeth; one ordered the husband out at gunpoint, children exited, and the co-defendant drove off in the BMW with defendant as a passenger.
A multi-jurisdictional police chase ended when the stolen BMW collided head-on with a police car; police recovered a gun, a purse, and two masks from the vehicle.
Victims identified the co-defendant at the hospital; one child identified defendant there in a show-up identification.
Defendant was indicted on carjacking and related charges, then pleaded guilty to first‑degree carjacking pursuant to a plea agreement recommending 10 years’ incarceration with 85% parole ineligibility under NERA; other counts were dismissed.
Defendant filed a PCR petition arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the child’s show-up identification under State v. Henderson and for not obtaining a Wade hearing; the PCR court denied relief.
The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Henderson framework did not apply and that, in any event, counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion was not deficient or prejudicial given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress a show‑up ID under Henderson	Counsel was not ineffective because Henderson’s new framework did not apply and a suppression motion would have failed under the then‑controlling Manson/Madison test	Counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the 10‑year‑old’s hospital show‑up ID under Henderson	Affirmed: No ineffective assistance — Henderson did not apply; under Manson/Madison the show‑up was not shown unduly suggestive and, even if counsel erred, no prejudice given strong other evidence
Whether the PCR court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance claim	No abuse; defendant did not make a prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice	Trial court should have held a hearing to develop evidence on the identification and counsel’s decisions	Affirmed: No evidentiary hearing required because defendant failed to establish a prima facie ineffective assistance claim

State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (reformed jury charge and analysis for eyewitness identification)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (two‑part test for suggestiveness and reliability of ID evidence)
State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988) (adopted Manson approach in New Jersey)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601 (2007) (counsel not ineffective for failing to file meritless suppression motion)
State v. Jones, 224 N.J. 70 (2016) (discussing analysis of suggestive ID procedures)
State v. Herrera, 187 N.J. 493 (2006) (noting show‑ups alone do not always require exclusion)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to counsel at post‑indictment ID procedures)