STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES PINNOCKÂ (03-09-0888, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1140-15T2

Background

James Pinnock was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from an August 2003 sexual assault: kidnapping, two robberies, three counts of aggravated sexual assault, terroristic threats, and weapons offenses; he received an aggregate 40-year sentence subject to No Early Release Act provisions.
This court affirmed Pinnock's convictions on direct appeal but remanded for sentencing corrections; the Supreme Court denied certification twice and the remand court again imposed the same aggregate sentence, which was later affirmed.
Pinnock filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (primarily that counsel coerced him not to testify), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise trial errors), and trial errors including alleged insufficiency of evidence and a flawed verdict sheet on the kidnapping charge.
The PCR judge denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding Pinnock failed to make a Preciose prima facie showing; the judge also held some claims procedurally barred under Rules 3:22-4(a) and 3:22-5 but addressed the merits and rejected them.
The judge relied on the trial record (including the on-the-record colloquy regarding Pinnock’s decision not to testify) and found no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; Pinnock appealed the denial of his PCR petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pinnock)	Held
Whether PCR petitioner made a Preciose prima facie showing requiring an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Judge correctly denied hearing; PCR record lacks credible proof counsel coerced defendant or performed deficiently	Trial counsel coerced Pinnock not to testify and failed to prepare him, warranting an evidentiary hearing	Denied — court found no prima facie showing; trial record (colloquy) contradicted coercion and no Strickland prejudice shown
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain trial errors on direct appeal	Appellate counsel not ineffective because the underlying trial-error claims lack merit and would not have changed outcome	Appellate counsel should have argued insufficiency and verdict-sheet errors; relief would have resulted	Denied — appellate counsel’s omission did not satisfy Strickland because issues lacked merit/no prejudice shown
Whether verdict sheet error and omission in jury charge deprived defendant of due process or supports PCR relief	Errors were either procedurally barred and, on the merits, insufficient to overturn verdict	Verdict sheet omitted unanimity/mental-state findings on kidnapping; this deprived Pinnock of a unanimous, proper verdict	Denied — claims procedurally barred or meritless; judge addressed and rejected the merits
Whether newly discovered evidence (pro se claim) warranted PCR relief	State: bare allegations without certifications are insufficient for relief	Pinnock: new evidence proves innocence and excused procedural bars	Denied — unsupported, uncertified assertions fail to meet PCR standards

Key Cases Cited

State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (establishes prima facie standard for PCR evidentiary hearings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (procedural-bar principles for PCR claims)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (appellate standard: factual findings supported by sufficient credible evidence)
State v. Sheika, 337 N.J. Super. 228 (clarifies prejudice standard; errors must undermine confidence in verdict)