STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN TOMAS-AGUILAR(11-05-0816, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3199-15T4

Background

Defendant Juan Tomas-Aguilar was convicted by a jury (2011) of first‑degree robbery, weapons offenses, possession of cocaine, and resisting arrest arising from a taxi robbery; sentenced to an aggregate 12 years with 85% parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act.
The taxi driver testified defendant produced a knife, held it to his throat, the driver was disarmed, and defendant fled with five $20 bills; police later found the bills and cocaine on defendant.
Defendant testified he fell asleep in the taxi, an altercation ensued when awakened, and he fled because he possessed drugs.
During deliberations jurors asked for a readback of defendant's testimony and clarification on unlawful possession of a weapon; the judge offered a one‑hour readback and re‑explained possession with an illustrative example; defense counsel did not object and the jury declined the readback.
On direct appeal this court affirmed; the Supreme Court denied certification. Defendant later filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for inadequate preparation/investigation (including failure to request DNA testing of the knife) and failure to object to the judge's jury responses. The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant established ineffective assistance of counsel entitling him to an evidentiary hearing	State: Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing under Strickland and Rule 3:22‑10(b); record resolves the issues.	Tomas‑Aguilar: Counsel prepared only days before trial, failed to investigate or request DNA testing of the knife, and failed to object to judge's jury responses.	Denied. Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice; speculative allegations and unsupported claims insufficient to require a hearing.
Whether failure to request DNA testing constituted deficient performance and prejudice	State: No factual showing that testing would have produced exculpatory results or that counsel’s decision was unreasonable.	Tomas‑Aguilar: DNA testing of the knife could have shown absence of his DNA and undermined the prosecution.	Denied. Speculation that DNA testing would help is insufficient; counsel may have had strategic reasons; no reasonable probability of a different outcome shown.
Whether counsel erred in not objecting to judge's answers to jury questions	State: This court already found no error on direct appeal, so no prejudice even if counsel failed to object.	Tomas‑Aguilar: Counsel should have objected to the judge's handling of the readback request and the weapon‑possession clarification.	Denied. Direct appeal held judge’s responses appropriate; absence of objection did not prejudice the defense.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required under Rule 3:22‑10(b)	State: No, because no prima facie case was shown and issues are resolvable from the record.	Tomas‑Aguilar: PCR court erred in refusing an evidentiary hearing to explore counsel’s preparation and strategy.	Denied. No material disputed facts shown that cannot be resolved from the record and no reasonable likelihood of success under Strickland.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established the two‑part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopting Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie PCR showing requires reasonable likelihood of success under Strickland)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (evidentiary hearing required only for material disputed facts not resolvable from the record)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (bald or conclusory assertions insufficient for prima facie PCR relief)