STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. T.M.(05-01-0010, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0506-15T4

Defendant T.M. was convicted in 2005 of multiple sexual-assault and child-endangering counts and sentenced to 30 years with 15 years parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed (with one count reduced); the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, then remanded for a hearing limited to whether defendant waived his right to be present for a search of his computer and camera.
At the remand evidentiary hearing (trial judge presiding), testimony and a forensic expert did not prove forgery; the judge found consent valid and that defendant waived his right to be present during the search.
The Supreme Court later denied defendant’s cross‑petition and dismissed the State’s earlier grant of certification; the remand ruling therefore stood.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the voluntariness/scope of the consent-to-search; PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing as the issue had been litigated and defendant failed to make a prima facie showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR court erred by denying evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance for failure to investigate consent-to-search	State: issue previously adjudicated on the merits at remand hearing; PCR bar applies	T.M.: claim differs because it alleges counsel failed to investigate (distinct from merits of the consent form)	Denied — claim procedurally barred and defendant failed to make prima facie showing of inadequate investigation
Whether defendant established prima facie ineffective assistance to warrant hearing	State: defendant offered only bald assertions, not affidavits or facts that investigation would have produced	T.M.: alleged counsel did not investigate validity of consent form (no supporting affidavits)	Denied — PCR requires factual allegations supported by affidavits/certifications; none provided
Whether consent-to-search validity can be relitigated in PCR	State: prior adjudication on the merits bars relitigation under Rule 3:22-5	T.M.: seeks to reframe issue as ineffective assistance rather than re-litigating consent	Denied — no material distinction; prior merits determination precludes relitigation
Whether, even if heard, outcome would differ	State: remand hearing already resolved voluntariness against defendant	T.M.: claims counsel’s investigation would have changed result	Denied — court concluded a new hearing would produce same outcome

State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (standard for granting an evidentiary hearing on PCR claims)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div.) (1999) (prima facie burden and need for factual support for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (PCR hearing required only for disputed material facts not resolvable on record)
State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464 (1997) (prior adjudication on the merits bars relitigation in PCR)
State v. King, 44 N.J. 346 (1965) (factors for voluntariness of consent to search)