STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN WRIGHT(06-08-1412, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0791-15T2

Defendant Kevin Wright was convicted by a Bergen County jury of third-degree aggravated sexual contact, endangering the welfare of a child, and fourth-degree child abuse for sexual misconduct involving his girlfriend's teenage daughter; he was acquitted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault.
Sentenced to concurrent 250-day jail terms with five years probation and lifetime community supervision under Megan's Law.
On direct appeal the convictions and evidentiary rulings were largely affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to request (1) a limiting jury charge on fresh-complaint testimony and (2) a limiting instruction regarding references to his incarceration; counsel was later appointed.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding counsel’s choices were strategic or, even if deficient, not prejudicial under Strickland.
Appellate division affirmed: assumed deficiency for the fresh-complaint instruction but found no reasonable probability of a different outcome; found counsel’s use of incarceration references strategic and no prejudice; no evidentiary hearing required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
1. Failure to request fresh-complaint limiting instruction	Trial counsel's omission was strategic or harmless; no prejudice because other evidence independently supported convictions	Counsel was ineffective for not obtaining required limiting instruction; prejudiced the defense	Court assumed deficiency but held no prejudice — evidence against Wright was compelling; no relief
2. Failure to request limiting instruction on incarceration references	References were used by defense and were not prejudicial; tactical decision to highlight victim's mother's support	Counsel ineffective for failing to limit jurors' consideration of incarceration references	Held strategic use by defense; not ineffective; no prejudice
3. Entitlement to evidentiary hearing on PCR claims	No genuine disputed material facts requiring a hearing; record resolved issues	Argued facts outside record required hearing to assess counsel's strategy	Held no prima facie showing of prejudice; evidentiary hearing not required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (PCR standards and procedures)
State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (discussion of counsel performance standard)
State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444 (fresh-complaint doctrine and limiting instruction requirement)
State v. Bethune, 121 N.J. 137 (limits on permissible content of fresh-complaint testimony)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (standards for granting PCR evidentiary hearings)
State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307 (presumption that counsel's conduct is reasonable)
State v. Bey, 161 N.J. 233 (strategic choices by counsel not automatically ineffective)
State v. Pyatt, 316 N.J. Super. 46 (prima facie PCR showing requires disputed material facts)