STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STAN BRAXTON (01-07-0505, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4183-15T3

Defendant Stan Braxton, incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, was convicted of one count of second-degree aggravated assault and four counts of third-degree aggravated assault for attacking corrections officers; sentenced to nine years.
At trial Braxton claimed officers attacked him in retaliation after he filed harassment complaints; officers testified Braxton exposed himself, refused orders, lunged, and struck Officer Stewart Richardson, who suffered facial fractures and a deviated septum requiring surgery.
Convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; PCR proceedings followed after an initial denial and an appellate remand for new counsel and hearings.
PCR evidentiary hearings included testimony from Dr. Rodolfo Diaz (surgeon), Officer Richardson, trial counsel Demetrius Parrish, and Braxton; issues included discrepancies between radiology reports, pre-existing nasal conditions, and missing physical evidence (a Vaseline jar).
The PCR court found counsel’s choices (targeting Richardson’s contact with other officers rather than attacking Diaz’s report) were strategic, rejected Braxton’s conspiracy and fabrication allegations as unsupported, and concluded any hearsay was harmless; the PCR petition was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Braxton)	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to challenge medical testimony (Dr. Diaz and Richardson)	Counsel’s decisions were reasonable trial strategy; injuries were established by admissible evidence	Counsel should have cross-examined Diaz on radiology discrepancies, pre-existing condition, and other inconsistencies to undermine injury proof	Denied — counsel’s choices were strategic and not deficient; no prejudice shown
Failure to object to hearsay medical opinion by Richardson	Any hearsay was either excluded at trial or harmless given Dr. Diaz’s corroborating expert testimony	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Richardson’s hearsay statements about medical diagnosis	Denied — objections were sustained at trial; corroborating expert made any error harmless
Failure to request adverse inference re missing Vaseline jar (exculpatory evidence)	No inference warranted because references to the jar were suppressed and evidence was not before jury	Missing jar undermined prosecution theory and supported retaliation defense; counsel should have sought adverse-inference instruction	Denied — Vaseline evidence had been suppressed; no basis for adverse-inference charge

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (applies Strickland in New Jersey)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (deferential review of PCR factual findings)
State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307 (2005) (strategic choices by counsel entitled to deference)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (ineffective assistance prejudice standard; reasonable probability)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (harmless-error analysis)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (ineffective assistance legal standards)