STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL J. SMITH (11-09-1145, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1351-14T2

Defendant Daniel J. Smith was indicted on multiple counts arising from a sexual act he committed with a 14‑year‑old male; he pled guilty to one count of second‑degree sexual assault in exchange for the State's recommendation of a seven‑year sentence and dismissal of remaining counts.
At plea allocution defendant acknowledged exposure to up to 10 years, Megan's Law registration, lifetime parole supervision, and potential civil commitment.
At sentencing the court found three aggravating factors and one mitigating factor (N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑1(b)(11)), and imposed the agreed seven‑year term.
Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence; he filed a pro se post‑conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to investigate or request additional mitigating factors under N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑1(b)(2), (4), (5), (7)–(9).
The PCR court denied relief as procedurally barred under Rule 3:22‑4(a) but also addressed the merits, concluding the asserted mitigating factors were not supported by the record and therefore counsel’s omission did not warrant relief; an evidentiary hearing was denied.
On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing the ineffective‑assistance claim was not procedurally barred but finding no merit to warrant discussion and affirming the PCR judge’s reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR was procedurally barred under R. 3:22‑4(a)	State: Defendant should have raised sentencing claim on direct appeal; PCR barred	Smith: Claim preserved for PCR because ineffective assistance deferred to PCR proceedings	Court: Claim not procedurally barred; generally defer ineffective‑assistance sentencing claims to PCR but decision affirmed on merits
Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing such that an evidentiary hearing or relief was required	State: Even if counsel omitted requests, the asserted mitigating factors lack record support and would not have changed sentence	Smith: Counsel failed to investigate/request multiple mitigating factors which, if considered, could have reduced sentence or warranted a hearing	Court: No prima facie ineffective‑assistance; asserted mitigating factors unsupported by record; no evidentiary hearing or relief required

State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (PCR evidentiary hearing not automatic)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (standards for PCR hearings and ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie standard for PCR ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598 (2014) (deficient performance and prejudice standards)
State v. Nuñez‑Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (standard for upsetting guilty plea on ineffective‑assistance grounds)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (1994) (guilty plea effectiveness framework)
State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293 (2006) (deferring ineffective‑assistance claims to PCR)
State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (2010) (mitigating factor analysis)
State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494 (2005) (mitigating factor review)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (mitigating factor jurisprudence)