STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. V.M.B.(08-08-0747, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0676-15T2

Defendant V.M.B. was indicted for multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and child endangerment involving four minor step-grandchildren; convicted by a jury on twenty counts and sentenced to an aggregate 79 years; direct appeal affirmed.
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress his videotaped confession; the trial court found his Miranda waiver knowing and voluntary after an evidentiary hearing; the bilingual Miranda form and lengthy, calm advisement were emphasized.
The confession was videotaped and played at trial; the State also produced a separate video of defendant molesting a victim and testimony from all four victims plus corroborating witnesses.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, later briefed by counsel, alleging (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately challenge admissibility of the confession and for not calling him to testify, and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the testimony issue on appeal.
At the PCR hearing the judge reviewed the DVD interview and prior colloquies, finding the detectives calm, the Miranda advisement comprehensive, and defendant’s claims not credible; the PCR judge denied relief under Strickland.
This appeal challenges the PCR denial; the Appellate Division affirms, holding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of confession / counsel’s failure to challenge it	Confession was knowingly and voluntarily given after bilingual, repeated advisals; counsel reasonably litigated suppression	Counsel failed to challenge that the confession was coerced due to duress/fear of police, so ineffective assistance	Denied — record (video, colloquy) shows knowing voluntary waiver; no prima facie ineffective assistance shown
Failure to call defendant to testify	Trial counsel discussed right with defendant; defendant’s testimony would not likely change outcome given other strong evidence	Counsel deprived defendant of constitutional right to testify by not calling him	Denied — defendant acknowledged the right in court colloquy; no showing of prejudice or how testimony would alter result
Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising testimony issue	Appellate counsel’s omissions were not prejudicial because the underlying claim lacked merit	Appellate counsel should have argued trial counsel’s failure to call defendant as a witness on direct appeal	Denied — underlying trial-level claim lacked merit, so no prejudice from appellate counsel’s omission
Cumulative error warrants new trial	Errors cumulatively undermined fairness	Multiple counsel errors require reversal under cumulative-error doctrine	Denied — no individual errors proven; cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires advisal of rights)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (N.J. 1987) (adoption of Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (defendant must plead facts, not bald assertions, to show ineffective assistance)
State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125 (N.J. 1954) (principles on cumulative error)