STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PIERRE A. DENEUS(10-06-1382, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3133-15T2

Background

Defendant Pierre Deneus was convicted by jury of second-degree kidnapping and related charges for abducting a 13‑year‑old, attempting to pay her for sex, and attempting to have sex; he also solicited an inmate to kill witnesses while incarcerated pretrial.
Sentenced in 2011 to 26 years with a 15‑year parole disqualifier under NERA; this court affirmed conviction on direct appeal in 2014 and remanded for limited resentencing; Supreme Court denied certification.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition (later amended with counsel) alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to pursue an intoxication defense, to challenge identification (cross‑racial misidentification), and to locate surveillance cameras; he also alleged wiretapping, entrapment, and prosecutorial misconduct (later abandoned on appeal).
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie showing: no evidence of intoxication, no showing defendant and victim were of different races, and no factual basis that surveillance cameras existed or would have produced exculpatory footage.
Judge Sules concluded counsel’s tactical choices were reasonable, appellant failed to support appellate‑counsel claims, and there was no evidence of wiretapping, entrapment, or prosecutorial misconduct.
Appellate Division affirmed, applying Strickland/Fritz standards and concluding defendant did not establish deficient performance or prejudice warranting an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not pursuing an intoxication defense	State: No evidence of intoxication in record; counsel reasonably declined the theory	Deneus: Counsel should have investigated/advanced intoxication to undermine culpability	Held: No prima facie showing; counsel’s choice was reasonable; no evidentiary support for intoxication
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise cross‑racial misidentification	State: No evidence parties were of different races or that identification was unreliable	Deneus: Misidentification argument could have undermined eyewitness ID	Held: Deneus failed to substantiate that races differed or that ID claim had merit; no prima facie claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for not locating surveillance cameras/footage	State: No showing cameras existed or that footage would create reasonable doubt	Deneus: Surveillance on 18th Avenue or elsewhere would contradict victim’s account	Held: Defendant offered no factual detail where cameras were or how footage would help; no basis for hearing
Whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance	State: No specific factual basis shown to support appellate‑counsel claim	Deneus: Appellate counsel failed to pursue issues (as above) on appeal	Held: Defendant failed to articulate facts showing appellate counsel was deficient or prejudiced the outcome

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR standards and burden of proof)
State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391 (2004) (standards of review for PCR findings)