STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MALIK FLOWERSÂ (07-09-1501, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0683-15T1

Background

In 2007 Flowers and a co-defendant allegedly robbed a Jersey City deli at gunpoint; police later arrested them after a witness (Fernandez) identified two men near a car; police recovered a handgun in the car trunk and money/credit cards on the defendants.
Flowers was convicted by a jury of robbery and multiple weapons offenses; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification.
Flowers filed a pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; after appointment of PCR counsel he filed an amended petition with a supporting certification.
Main PCR allegations: trial counsel failed to investigate/cross-examine witness Fernandez about prior arrests/charges and failed to object to certain jury instructions; appellate counsel failed to raise suppression and Wade issues on appeal.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding (1) Fernandez’s disorderly-person matter could not have biased his 2007 identification and was inadmissible for impeachment, (2) trial counsel’s challenged tactical choices fell within reasonable professional judgment, and (3) appellate counsel’s omissions did not show prejudice sufficient under Strickland/Fritz.
This appeal challenges the denial of PCR and the refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Flowers made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of trial counsel	PCR court/State: trial counsel’s performance was within reasonable professional norms; factual claims speculative; impeachment of Fernandez was barred by law	Flowers: trial counsel failed to investigate/cross-examine Fernandez about prior arrests/charges and failed to object to jury instructions	Denied — PCR court’s factual/legal rulings affirmed; Flowers did not satisfy Strickland/Fritz praecipe for deficient performance or prejudice
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising suppression and Wade issues on appeal	State: appellate counsel’s omissions did not create reasonable probability of a different outcome; motion judge credited officer testimony and found no taint in show-up IDs	Flowers: appellate counsel should have challenged denial of suppression of gun and denial of Wade hearing	Denied — no prima facie prejudice shown; record supports credibility findings and lack of prejudice
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	State: no hearing required because Flowers failed to present specific, credible facts outside the record creating disputed material issues	Flowers: alleged material disputed facts (witness background, suggestiveness of ID) warranted a hearing	Denied — Rule 3:22-10 standards unmet; speculative allegations insufficient to require hearing
Admissibility/impeachment value of Fernandez’s subsequent disorderly-person matter	State: disorderly-person offenses are not crimes for impeachment; the contempt charge did not exist at time of ID and could not have produced benefit	Flowers: Fernandez’s background and post-event matters would show bias and impeachment value	Held for State — disorderly-person matter not admissible for impeachment and could not have affected 2007 ID; trial counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue it

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Fritz v. United States, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland framework)
Preciose v. State, 129 N.J. 451 (PCR burden and standards for evidentiary hearings)
Rowe v. State, 57 N.J. 293 (disorderly persons convictions are not admissible for impeachment)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (standards for pretrial identification challenges)