STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANKLIN D. NICOLOUDAKIS(07-08-0842, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1276-14T4

Background

Defendant pled guilty (March 31, 2008) to fourth‑degree stalking and was sentenced to five years of probation; direct appeal affirmed.
Defendant timely filed a pro se PCR petition on April 1, 2013, and an amended petition on July 20, 2013 (last day of the five‑year filing period fell on a Sunday).
The criminal case management office sent three letters (Aug. 20, 2013; Oct. 17, 2013; Jan. 8, 2014) asking defendant to state whether he wanted appointed counsel, had private counsel, or would proceed pro se; defendant did not respond.
On Aug. 14, 2014 the trial court dismissed the PCR petition without prejudice for failure to submit an affidavit of indigency or otherwise state counsel status; letter explained dismissal under R. 3:22‑6(a).
Defendant filed a timely pro se reconsideration motion explaining he intended to proceed pro se, attached portions of his petitions showing pro se status, and argued he had no notice that non‑response would result in dismissal; the court denied reconsideration on Sept. 29, 2014.
Appellate court reversed: vacated dismissal, reinstated the PCR petition, and remanded for further proceedings, holding the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing sua sponte without giving prior notice or considering defendant’s showings on reconsideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal without prejudice for failure to state counsel status was proper when defendant did not respond to case‑management letters	Court/State relied on R. 3:22‑6(a) and the letters; nonresponse justified dismissal	Defendant said he was pro se, never received indigency form, and letters did not warn dismissal would follow nonresponse	Reversed: dismissal was an abuse of discretion where court acted sua sponte without notice and defendant later clarified he proceeded pro se
Whether defendant’s pro se filings signaled an unequivocal assertion of self‑representation	State/judge contended nonresponse did not constitute a clear, unequivocal request for self‑representation (citing inquiry standards)	Defendant pointed to pro se designations on original/amended petitions as clear notice he would proceed pro se	Held for defendant: pro se status was clarified on reconsideration and the court should have considered that before dismissing
Whether reconsideration was properly denied under R. 4:49‑2	State argued reconsideration standard (not mere disagreement) bars relief	Defendant argued reconsideration supplied new/clarifying information and he lacked prior notice of potential dismissal	Held for defendant: reconsideration appropriate because initial order issued sua sponte without opportunity to be heard; failure to consider new information was abuse of discretion
Whether dismissal’s purported preservation to refile cured due‑process concerns given PCR time limits	State suggested dismissal without prejudice allowed refiling and court would consider timeliness	Defendant argued refiling past the five‑year limit would be uncertain and rule for automatic 90‑day refile did not apply here	Held for defendant: trial judge’s suggestion that refiling was freely available was insufficient; dismissal without prior notice risked forfeiture of the statutory limitation and required reversal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Figueroa, 186 N.J. 589 (2006) (establishes probing inquiry for a defendant's request for self‑representation at trial)
Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996) (states Rule 4:49‑2 reconsideration standards)
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (reconsideration is not for mere dissatisfaction or reargument)
Calcaterra v. Calcaterra, 206 N.J. Super. 398 (App. Div. 1986) (reconsideration particularly appropriate where initial order issued without litigation or argument)