STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES D. DIXON (10-03-0358, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0418-15T1

Defendant James D. Dixon was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree robbery and burglary, third-degree aggravated assault, and several lesser offenses; sentenced initially to 25 years (later reduced to 20 years on resentencing).
Uncontroverted evidence showed Dixon entered the victim J.R.’s home, the victim fell on stairs and sustained severe blunt-force facial and brain injuries, and Dixon admitted taking the victim’s wallet; police arrested Dixon inside the home.
Medical testimony attributed a facial depression and fractures to deliberate blunt-force trauma (likely "fisting") inconsistent with a simple fall.
Dixon claimed at trial he did not assault J.R.; at PCR he alleged trial counsel misadvised him to reject a State plea offer of 10 years because counsel believed the State could not prove an assault element given the victim’s lack of memory.
Dixon also raised (a) that the trial judge should not have presided because the judge had ruled on a suppression motion and knew of Dixon’s priors, and (b) that the judge failed to "charge himself" at the end of the bench trial; the PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing and did not address these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Dixon to reject a 10-year plea	State: counsel’s performance was not shown deficient or prejudicial without further factfinding	Dixon: counsel misadvised him by downplaying the State’s ability to prove assault/causation, prompting rejection of plea	Remanded for the PCR court to decide this claim and supplement findings; evidentiary hearing may be required
Whether PCR counsel failed to advance all issues Dixon raised	State: PCR counsel’s performance not dispositive on appeal without record development	Dixon: PCR counsel omitted arguments raised in the pro se petition, warranting relief	Court remanded for supplemental findings; directed PCR judge to address omitted claims
Whether the trial judge should have been disqualified for prior involvement and knowledge of priors	State: judge exposure to pretrial matters does not alone require disqualification	Dixon: judge heard suppression motion and knew priors, so must be disqualified	Rejected: claim barred on direct appeal and meritless; judges can disregard inadmissible matters and defendant waived objection
Whether a judge must "charge himself" after a bench trial	State: no such requirement exists	Dixon: believed judge must give self-instruction like jury charges	Rejected as without merit; does not warrant discussion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice in plea context requires showing likelihood of acceptance, court acceptance, and lesser sentence)
State v. Medina, 439 N.J. Super. 108 (exposure to inadmissible pretrial evidence does not automatically require judge disqualification)
State v. Kern, 325 N.J. Super. 435 (trial judge as factfinder can separate admissible from inadmissible evidence)
State v. Kunz, 55 N.J. 128 (judges can exclude irrelevant materials that come to their attention)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (procedural bar: issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are generally barred on PCR)