STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN MCNEAL (10-01-0082, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0674-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Defendant John McNeal pleaded guilty in 2011 to: third-degree distribution within 1,000 feet of a school, third-degree resisting arrest, and fourth-degree aggravated assault on a police officer; aggregate 4-year term with 2 years parole ineligibility, consecutive to an existing sentence.
- Prior to pleading, McNeal moved to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant; the trial judge indicated the warrant had "very serious issues" and likely would be suppressed.
- After partial suppression argument and the court‘s critical comments, defense counsel withdrew the suppression motion and McNeal accepted a plea reducing exposure from an earlier 8-year offer to a 4-year recommendation.
- McNeal later filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance for advising withdrawal of a meritorious suppression motion and sought to withdraw his plea, also arguing the plea’s factual basis was confusing and inconsistent.
- The PCR court (same judge who handled the suppression motion and plea) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding counsel was effective, the plea substantially benefited McNeal, and remaining non-warrant-related evidence supported the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McNeal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was counsel ineffective for withdrawing the suppression motion? | Counsel’s withdrawal followed the court’s adverse comments and a favorable plea renegotiation; no reasonable probability of a better outcome. | Counsel was ineffective for abandoning a meritorious suppression motion based on a defective warrant. | Court: No ineffective assistance; plea negotiation substantially reduced exposure and remaining evidence supported convictions. |
| 2. Should the guilty plea be vacated for a confusing or inconsistent factual basis? | The plea colloquy supplied a sufficient factual basis; no grounds to vacate. | The factual basis was confusing/inconsistent, warranting vacatur. | Court: Claim without merit; no discussion required. |
| 3. Was an evidentiary hearing required on the PCR claim? | No; record showed no reasonable probability that a hearing would change the outcome. | Yes; disputed facts about counsel’s advice and withdrawal of the motion justify a hearing. | Court: No evidentiary hearing required under Preciose; PCR judge properly denied hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (standards for withdrawing guilty pleas and showing colorable innocence)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (standards governing when an evidentiary hearing is required on PCR petitions)