STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHARLES NOBLEÂ (95-08-2645, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3593-15T1

Defendant Charles Noble (aka Gerard Alston) was convicted in 1996 of third-degree theft and sentenced to 5 years custody with 2.5 years parole ineligibility, consecutive to an earlier January 1996 sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
At the May 15, 1996 sentencing for the theft conviction, the court relied on a January 16, 1996 presentence report that included a May 15, 1996 probation "UPDATE" addendum rather than a wholly new presentence report.
In December 2014, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition (filed ~18 years after judgment) arguing trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the court to use the earlier presentence report and that the sentence was illegal for that reason.
The PCR court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding it time-barred under R. 3:22-12(a)(1) and, alternatively, rejecting the merits — concluding counsel was not constitutionally ineffective and the sentence was not illegal.
Defendant appealed, challenging the time-bar ruling, the denial of an evidentiary hearing, and the claim that counsel’s failure to object rendered the sentence illegal or ineffective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under R. 3:22-12(a)(1)	PCR court: petition filed >5 years after judgment and defendant gave no excusable-neglect facts	Noble: sentence illegal; therefore time bar inapplicable (Rule 3:21-10(b)(5))	Petition is time-barred; Noble failed to allege excusable neglect or fundamental injustice
Illegality of sentence based on use of prior PSR	State: sentence within statutory range and authorized by law	Noble: reliance on prior PSR (even with addendum) violated R.3:21-2 and N.J.S.A.2C:44-6, making sentence illegal	Use of updated January PSR did not make the sentence "illegal"; claim not cognizable on PCR as an illegality under Rule 3:21-10(b)(5)
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to PSR use	State: counsel’s performance not constitutionally deficient; no prejudice shown	Noble: counsel should have objected; prejudice in sentencing followed	Strickland standard not met — counsel not shown deficient and no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Denial of evidentiary hearing	State: hearing not warranted when petition is time-barred and merits fail	Noble: factual development needed to prove excusable neglect and ineffective assistance	No error denying an evidentiary hearing because defendant failed to meet threshold factual/practical burdens

State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391 (2004) (de novo review standard for PCR legal conclusions and mixed questions)
State v. Acevedo, 205 N.J. 40 (2011) (absence of stated reasons for consecutive sentences does not render sentence "illegal")
State v. Murray, 162 N.J. 240 (1999) (definition of illegal sentence and when a sentence is not "in accordance with law")
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adopts Strickland standard for state PCR claims)
State v. Mance, 300 N.J. Super. 37 (1997) (remand for resentencing where court relied on an outdated PSR raised on direct appeal)
State v. Cann, 342 N.J. Super. 93 (App. Div. 2001) (PCR petition must allege facts supporting excusable neglect)
State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (petition must allege facts relied on to support claims for late filing)
State v. Afandafor, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (burden to justify late filing increases with length of delay)
State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2013) (long delays undercut excusable-neglect findings)
State v. Clark, 65 N.J. 426 (1974) (excessive but authorized sentences not grounds for PCR)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (standards for evidentiary hearings on PCR petitions)