STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KENNETH BACON-VAUGHTERSÂ (09-07-1467, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1754-15T3

Background

Kenneth Bacon-Vaughters was convicted after a nine-day jury trial (felony murder, robbery, conspiracy, unlawful weapon possession) and sentenced to 40 years with NERA parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal he challenged jury instructions, suppression of a March 12 statement, admission of a victim's statement, and sentence; the Appellate Division affirmed and the NJ Supreme Court denied certification.
He filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including pressure not to testify and poor advice about pursuing a Miranda suppression issue) and cumulative error.
Judge Tassini, who did not preside at trial, denied the PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie ineffective assistance and that many claims were procedurally barred.
The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing the PCR court applied Strickland and Preciose standards correctly and that no hearing was warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel pressured defendant not to testify, requiring PCR relief	Counsel acted reasonably; trial judge conducted extensive on-the-record colloquy; tactical reasons existed to keep defendant off the stand	Counsel "demanded" waiver of right to testify and thus was ineffective	Affirmed denial: allegation unsupported, unsworn/bald assertion, on-record colloquy and plausible trial strategy; no prima facie showing, so no hearing
Whether counsel's Miranda-based strategy caused defendant to forego a plea and thus was ineffective	Defendant failed to show particulars—what was said, when plea offer communicated—and claim is speculative	Trial counsel assured a successful Miranda challenge and defendant would have accepted a 20-year plea but for counsel's advice	Affirmed denial: insufficient particularity and speculative; no reasonable probability defendant would have accepted plea shown
Whether other procedural/evidentiary complaints warrant PCR	Many issues were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by Rule 3:22-4	Challenges that counsel was ineffective for specific omissions (e.g., failing to call Detective Nelson)	Affirmed: remaining claims barred or previously litigated; no relief
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the PCR petition	No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; hearing not required under Preciose	Defendant contends factual disputes require a hearing to resolve credibility and obtain relief	Affirmed: PCR court properly applied Strickland/Preciose and denied hearing due to lack of prima facie case

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings rule)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland principles; deference to trial strategy)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie requirement for PCR hearings)