STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARCUS ZAPATA-CARENO(10-03-0211, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3696-15T2

Background

In 2011 a jury convicted Marcus Zapata‑Careno of first‑degree kidnapping and simple assault for forcibly keeping his ex‑girlfriend (E.M.) in her car/at a park, punching and biting her, and preventing her departure until a bystander intervened. He was sentenced to 15 years with an 85% NERA parole ineligibility. Direct appeal affirmed.
At trial the court admitted sanitized testimony about defendant's prior uncharged violence against E.M. and testimony about an uncharged subsequent assault as consciousness of guilt after two N.J.R.E. 104 hearings; limiting instructions were given. This evidentiary ruling was affirmed on direct appeal.
Careno filed a pro se PCR petition (later amended by counsel) claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge admission of the other‑acts evidence, failing to let him testify at the 104 hearings, appellate counsel’s failure to argue insufficiency of kidnapping evidence, and seeking a new trial based on alleged recantation/newly discovered evidence.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing as procedurally barred (Rule 3:22‑5) or meritless; alternatively it addressed the merits and found no Strickland‑Fritz prejudice and that the appellate outcome would not have changed. The court also held the newly discovered evidence claim (recantation) was inadequately specified and would not have altered the verdict.
This appeal challenges the denial of an evidentiary hearing and PCR relief. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing the PCR judge did not abuse discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing or relief.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Careno's Argument	Held
Whether Careno made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to repeated testimony of his uncharged prior violence	PCR denial proper: claim was previously litigated/decided on appeal and/or lacked Strickland prejudice; appellate decision validated admissibility	Trial counsel deficient for not excluding prejudicial other‑acts evidence; this deprived him of a fair trial	Denied: procedurally barred/substantively fails Strickland—no reasonable probability of different outcome; admission was upheld on appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony about an alleged assault occurring after the charged kidnapping (admitted as consciousness of guilt)	Same as above: admissibility upheld; no prejudice shown	Failing to exclude post‑offense assault evidence prejudiced the defense	Denied: claim procedurally barred and fails Strickland; PCR court and Appellate Division found evidence admissible with limiting instruction
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging sufficiency of kidnapping evidence on direct appeal	PCR court: even if raised, sufficiency challenge would fail because jury credibility determinations entitled to deference (Sims) and no manifest injustice shown	Appellate counsel deficient for omitting sufficiency argument that could have reversed conviction	Denied: no reasonable probability of success on appeal; insufficiency claim would not have prevailed
Whether newly discovered evidence (victim recantation) warrants a new trial	Recantation claim was unspecified, not newly discovered, or would not have changed verdict under Carter test	Recantation/new evidence would have changed outcome and warrants new trial	Denied: defendant failed to meet Carter factors—lack of specificity, evidence was or could have been discovered earlier, and would not likely change verdict

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applies Strickland in New Jersey PCR context)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (standard for granting evidentiary hearing on PCR)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (test for admissibility of other‑crimes evidence)
State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (test for newly discovered evidence warranting new trial)
State v. Sims, 65 N.J. 359 (deference to trial court credibility findings on appeal)