STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY MURPHY(95-09-1004, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4677-15T2

Timothy Murphy was convicted after bifurcated jury trials of armed robbery and related weapons offenses and sentenced as a persistent offender to an aggregate 50-year term with 20 years parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal convictions and sentence were affirmed; the Supreme Court denied certification. Murphy later filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance of two successive defense attorneys for failing to advise him he faced an extended-term sentence if he did not plead before trial.
The first PCR judge denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; this court initially affirmed, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing. A subsequent Appellate Division remand directed a testimonial evidentiary hearing.
At the May 25, 2016 PCR evidentiary hearing both defense counsel (pretrial and trial counsel) testified they routinely reviewed plea offers and would have explained extended-term exposure; both lacked specific recollection but described consistent practice.
Murphy testified he was never told about extended-term eligibility and denied being informed; he also had on-record complaints during trial about counsel but remained silent when he alleged he later learned about extended-term exposure.
The PCR court found both attorneys credible, rejected Murphy’s testimony, credited counsel’s routine-practice testimony under N.J.R.E. 406, and denied the PCR petition. This appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Murphy of extended-term eligibility pretrial	Counsel were credible and had routine practice of advising clients about sentencing exposure; Murphy failed to prove deficiency	Counsel did not inform Murphy he was eligible for an extended term before trial, depriving him of a meaningful plea choice	Court held counsel credible, Murphy not credible; no ineffective assistance established
Whether Murphy proved prejudice (i.e., reasonable probability he would have pled)	No showing of prejudice; court noted record discredits Murphy’s claims and his behavior at trial undermines his story	Murphy would have pled but for counsel’s silence about extended-term exposure	Court found no prejudice proven; denied PCR relief
Whether PCR factfinding and credibility determinations were entitled to deference	PCR court observed witnesses and credited counsel; decisions supported by evidence and proper use of habit evidence	Argued PCR court erred in assessing credibility and habit evidence	Appellate court deferred to PCR factual findings and affirmed

State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (deference to PCR court factual findings after evidentiary hearing)
State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560 (2015) (appellate review of PCR factual findings supported by record)
State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (2012) (petitioner bears burden of proving claim by preponderance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adoption of Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (1978) (use of prior convictions in assessing witness credibility)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
State v. Murphy, 213 N.J. 533 (2013) (Supreme Court remanding for evidentiary hearing)