STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TULIO R. MENAÂ (96-05-0724, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0521-15T4

Tulio R. Mena was indicted in 1996 for multiple 1995 gas‑station robberies; convicted by jury in 2009 of two robberies using an imitation handgun and later sentenced to an aggregate 15 years with a 7.5‑year parole disqualifier.
At trial, defense counsel requested a Spanish interpreter (outside the jury) and made an opening remark suggesting a purported police statement was not the defendant’s; the judge criticized counsel and warned of sanctions, including comments made in the jury’s presence about the opening remark.
On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but found the judge’s in‑jury comments inappropriate and concluded they were harmless, and remanded for resentencing.
Mena filed a timely PCR petition arguing trial counsel was ineffective because the judge’s admonitions (in front of the jury) impaired counsel’s advocacy; he also claimed appellate/PCR counsel were ineffective for failing to raise certain issues.
The PCR judge denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding Strickland prejudice not shown, prior‑adjudication/harmlessness applied, and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The Appellate Division affirmed, largely adopting the PCR judge’s reasoning and holding the claims were procedurally barred or meritless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR warranted an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel ineffectiveness based on the judge’s admonition in front of the jury	Prior adjudication and harmlessness: direct appeal already addressed judge’s conduct; no prejudice shown	Judge’s public admonition could have intimidated counsel, degrading representation and biasing the jury; need testimony from trial counsel	Denied. Claims were previously litigated/harmless; no prima facie Strickland showing; no hearing required
Whether PCR counsel (or appellate counsel) was ineffective for failing to raise defendant’s pro se claims (plea negotiation assistance, consecutive exposure explanation, jury instruction and sentencing objections)	Counsel’s alleged omissions were unsupported by record and defendant’s bare allegations fail to make out prima facie ineffective assistance	PCR counsel failed to raise issues defendant requested, warranting relief or an evidentiary hearing	Denied. Pro se assertions lacked substance to warrant discussion or hearing; no prima facie showing of prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464 (prior adjudication on the merits is binding in subsequent PCR proceedings)
State v. Loftin, 191 N.J. 172 (right to effective counsel extends to PCR counsel when raising trial counsel claims for first time)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (limitations on evaluating PCR counsel ineffectiveness on the trial record and requirement of prima facie proof for an evidentiary hearing)