STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DERRICK WASHINGTON(10-06-1210, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1181-15T3

Derrick Washington pleaded guilty to third-degree possession with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with three years parole ineligibility.
He sought suppression of evidence from a consent search; the motion to suppress was denied and he entered a plea in accordance with the agreement.
Washington filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR); this Court remanded the petition for an evidentiary hearing.
The PCR hearing was scheduled and adjourned several times (both parties requested some adjournments); the judge ordered subpoenas for witnesses and warned no further adjournments would be granted.
At the sixth scheduled date, Washington’s counsel said two key witnesses were unavailable (one hospitalized, one on vacation) and requested another adjournment. The judge denied the adjournment and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing for failure to produce witnesses and no ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.

Issue	State's Argument	Washington's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR court abused its discretion by denying an adjournment and dismissing the petition	Court's management and repeated subpoenas justified denial; dismissal balances rights and court administration	Denial was an abuse of discretion because counsel could not produce two witnesses who would support voluntariness claim	No abuse of discretion; dismissal without prejudice was reasonable given history and subpoenas requirement
Whether the PCR record was inadequate for appellate review	Record and judge’s explanation provided sufficient basis for review	Record was insufficiently developed to assess denial	Record adequate for review; more detailed inquiry would be preferable but not required
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to produce/subpoena witnesses at PCR	Counsel referenced subpoenas and made efforts; missing witnesses would not have changed outcome	Counsel was ineffective for not securing witnesses, prejudicing Washington’s case	Ineffective assistance not shown: no substandard performance or prejudice under Strickland
Whether the unavailable witnesses’ testimony would have altered the suppression outcome	Witnesses’ statements were inconsistent or not relevant to voluntariness; aunt was not present when consent signed	Witness testimony would corroborate coercion/alternative events	Witness testimony likely would not have altered credibility findings; suppression ruling and PCR denial stand

Burton v. United States, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (factors for evaluating adjournment requests and court scheduling)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Gillman v. Bally Mfg. Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 523 (App. Div. 1996) (standard for overturning discretionary rulings)
State v. Munroe, 210 N.J. 429 (N.J. 2012) (deference to trial court discretion unless prejudice to substantial rights)