STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHEN E. MULLINS, JR. Â (12-08-0804 AND 13-01-0044, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4983-15T4

In 2012 and 2013 Mullins was indicted on multiple felonies arising from domestic violence incidents, including gun-possession and related charges; several counts were later dismissed as part of plea negotiations.
Troopers encountered Mullins after the victim escaped; they placed him in a patrol car and performed a protective sweep during which a handgun was discovered and later seized pursuant to a search warrant.
Mullins pleaded guilty to amended weapons charges in both indictments in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges and a joint recommendation of concurrent five-year terms with one year parole ineligibility (a departure from Graves Act penalties).
Mullins did not appeal; he later filed a PCR petition claiming defense counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to obtain an alleged motor vehicle recording (MVR) from the patrol car that Mullins said he observed running, which he claimed would have supported a suppression motion, and (2) erroneously advising him he would be eligible for immediate parole if he pled guilty.
The State requested the MVR from State Police and represented none existed; Mullins presented no evidence to contradict that or to show counsel never sought it.
The trial court denied PCR without an evidentiary hearing, finding the MVR never existed (so counsel’s conduct regarding it was immaterial), Mullins’ suppression theory was speculative, and the plea was demonstrably advantageous given Graves Act exposure; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an MVR that would have supported suppression	The State argued no MVR existed; thus counsel’s conduct about the MVR was immaterial and Mullins offered no evidence to the contrary	Mullins claimed he saw the MVR operating and it would have shown the handgun was seized before a warrant, supporting suppression	Court held no hearing required: State represented MVR never existed, Mullins offered no proof, and the claim was speculative, failing prima facie showing
Whether counsel was ineffective in advising Mullins about parole eligibility, inducing his guilty plea	The State argued the plea gave Mullins a highly favorable result against Graves Act exposure and the record shows plea and sentencing explanations; Mullins couldn’t show he would have gone to trial	Mullins said counsel misadvised him he would be eligible for parole almost immediately and would therefore not have pled but for that advice	Court held plea advice claim failed: Mullins received a favorable plea; record showed plea/sentence terms explained; he did not establish reasonable probability he would have refused the deal

Cummings v. State, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (PCR petitioner must allege facts sufficient to show ineffectiveness; bald assertions insufficient)
Porter v. State, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (standards for when evidentiary hearing is required in PCR proceedings)
O'Neil v. State, 219 N.J. 598 (2014) (two-prong Strickland-type test for ineffective assistance explained)
Nuñez-Valdéz v. State, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (standard for setting aside guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance)
DiFrisco v. State, 137 N.J. 434 (1994) (original articulation of plea-withdrawal ineffective-assistance standard)
Nash v. State, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (burden on PCR petitioner to prove entitlement to relief by preponderance)