STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HOWARD L. RYAN Â (08-11-0495, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4773-15T1

Background

Defendant Howard L. Ryan was convicted by a jury of attempting to lure/entice a minor into a motor vehicle, sentenced to 7.5 years with five years parole ineligibility.
Direct appeal and certiorari were denied; defendant then filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Defendant's PCR claims: counsel failed to file a Miranda suppression motion; counsel did not review or effectively use the victim’s recorded statement before cross-examination; counsel failed to investigate/meet with defendant and potential corroborating witnesses (including defendant’s deceased wife).
The PCR judge (who did not preside at trial) denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding no meritorious Miranda issue, that counsel obtained an adjournment to review the tape during trial, and that defendant offered no supporting affidavits for alleged missing witnesses.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of Strickland prejudice or deficient performance and that Miranda warnings were not constitutionally required under the facts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a Miranda suppression motion	State: Officers conducted brief on-scene questioning, not custodial interrogation; Miranda not required	Ryan: Officer’s stops and questioning were custodial, so a suppression motion should have been filed	Held: No Miranda violation; questioning was noncustodial, suppression would have failed, counsel not ineffective
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to review/use victim’s recorded statement before cross-examination	State: Counsel obtained an adjournment, reviewed tape, cross-examination occurred after review; tape did not contradict in-court testimony	Ryan: Counsel never listened to the tape before trial and thus failed to impeach the victim	Held: No deficiency or prejudice; counsel reviewed tape during trial and testimony did not materially contradict recording
Whether counsel failed to investigate and secure corroborating witnesses (including an alibi/wife)	State: Defendant provided no affidavits or specific information identifying witnesses; wife deceased and not present at incident	Ryan: Counsel did not investigate or interview obvious witnesses who would corroborate his account	Held: Defendant failed to satisfy Rule 3:22-10(c) affidavit requirement and did not show how unavailable witnesses would create reasonable doubt; no prima facie claim
Whether PCR court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing	State: Record and certifications insufficient to warrant hearing under Strickland/Fritz/Preciose standards	Ryan: Allegations and pro se submissions justified an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes	Held: No abuse; defendant did not make the requisite factual showing to mandate a hearing

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adoption of Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie standard for PCR claims)
State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596 (1990) (no counsel deficiency where suppression motion would have failed)
State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540 (2004) (importance of testimony that could raise reasonable doubt)
State v. Smith, 374 N.J. Super. 425 (App. Div. 2005) (distinguishing custodial interrogation)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div.) (1999) (affidavit requirement and specificity for PCR witness claims)
State v. Petrozelli, 351 N.J. Super. 14 (App. Div. 2002) (necessity of witness certifications to support PCR allegations)