STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JASON E. MCKINNONÂ STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GARRY MADDOX(07-09-0124, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-5751-14T3/A-0192-15T4

Background

Defendants Jason McKinnon and Gary Maddox were tried together for large-scale narcotics offenses based on CI-controlled buys, a state police wiretap, recorded calls, a supplier's testimony, and seizures (cocaine, packaging, gun, vehicles, money). Both convicted of racketeering and leading a narcotics trafficking network; McKinnon also convicted under weapons statute.
Each received aggregate sentences of life imprisonment plus 15 years (life sentences with 30 years parole ineligibility, consecutive racketeering terms).
Direct appeals were consolidated and affirmed; New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification.
Both defendants filed pro se PCR petitions within the Rule 3:22 window, were appointed PCR counsel, and submitted supplemental materials; trial judge (Judge Fox) held hearings and issued detailed oral and written decisions denying relief.
Defendants appealed the PCR denials, raising ineffective-assistance claims against trial and appellate counsel, alleged procedural errors (denial of oral argument), juror non-disclosure, and alleged Rule 3:22-6(d) violation by PCR counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel entitling them to an evidentiary hearing	State: defendants failed to meet the Strickland/Fritz standard or show a reasonable likelihood of success; existing record disposes of claims	Defendants: counsel committed multiple trial/appellate errors (failure to object, inadequately defend leader-of-network charge, cumulative errors) warranting a hearing	Denied: Judge Fox correctly found no prima facie showing; appellate court affirmed — no evidentiary hearing required
Whether denial of oral argument (or rendering decision before full argument) violated defendants' rights	State: PCR court did not abuse discretion; reasons given or defendant waived argument	Defendants: judge interrupted counsel, had prepared decision, or failed to allow full argument, depriving fair hearing	Denied: record shows Maddox received oral argument and judge considered it; McKinnon’s counsel declined to argue after receiving the written opinion; no abuse of discretion
Whether PCR counsel violated Rule 3:22-6(d) by failing to list or adopt all pro se claims, requiring remand and new counsel	State: PCR court addressed pro se and counsel-raised claims; no Rule violation warranting remand	McKinnon: counsel omitted or failed to incorporate by reference some pro se contentions, so claims were not advanced	Denied: Judge Fox addressed all pro se contentions in her written opinion; no remand or new counsel required
Whether juror nondisclosure/open disregard of instructions required an evidentiary hearing	State: record insufficient to show juror misconduct necessitating hearing	Maddox: juror failed to disclose knowledge and discussed trial, warranting hearing	Denied: PCR court analyzed allegation and found no prima facie showing; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie showing required for PCR; reasonable likelihood of success standard)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (requirements for an evidentiary hearing on PCR and Rule 3:22-10(b) standards)
State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (2012) (strong presumption favoring oral argument on initial PCR petitions)