STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BENJAMIN LEVINEÂ (07-05-0864, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2421-15T1

Defendant Benjamin Levine was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from practicing medicine without a license, theft by deception, falsification of records, and insurance fraud; aggregate eight-year sentence and restitution were imposed.
This Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal and remanded only to correct the restitution amount.
Defendant filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), largely rearguing claims raised (or that could have been raised) on direct appeal and asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to pursue licensing-jurisdiction issues.
The PCR judge denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding most claims were procedurally barred under Rules 3:22-4 and 3:22-5 and that counsel had provided constitutionally adequate representation given the evidence.
This appeal challenges the denial of PCR; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Levine)	Held
1. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate licensing status and witnesses	PCR denial appropriate; defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of deficient performance and prejudice	Trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not investigating license status and not presenting administrative licensing rules	Denied—claim barred or meritless; defendant did not meet Preciose/Strickland prima facie burden
2. Whether PCR court erred by refusing evidentiary hearing on reasserted direct-appeal issues	Issues already raised or could have been raised on direct appeal; barred by Rules 3:22-4 and 3:22-5	Court should have held a hearing and reconsidered those claims	Denied—claims procedurally barred; no entitlement to rehearing of matters decided on direct appeal
3. Whether prosecution should have been handled by State Board of Medical Examiners (jurisdiction)	Jurisdictional argument was raised and rejected on direct appeal	Prosecution lacked authority; matter belonged to administrative board	Denied—claim previously litigated; R.3:22-5 bars relitigation; direct appeal rejected this theory
4. Whether trial court erred by refusing counsel defendant sought to retain (scheduling/representation)	Matter was raised on direct appeal and rejected	Trial court improperly denied requested counsel and scheduling accommodations	Denied—argument was previously raised on appeal and is barred from PCR review

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (requires showing of deficient performance and prejudice to establish ineffective assistance)
Nash v. State, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (burden on PCR petitioner to prove entitlement to relief by preponderance)
Preciose v. Romo, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR is not a substitute for direct appeal; prima facie standard for hearings)
Mitchell v. State, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (PCR petition must allege specific facts to provide an adequate basis for decision)
Cummings v. State, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (1999) (bald assertions of ineffectiveness insufficient to warrant a hearing)
Fritz v. State, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopts Strickland standard for New Jersey ineffective-assistance claims)
Marroccelli v. State, 448 N.J. Super. 349 (2017) (appellate courts generally decline issues not raised below absent jurisdictional or great public interest grounds)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (same principle regarding preservation of issues)