STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GREGORY WRIGHT (09-08-0725, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0012-18

Defendant Gregory Wright was tried April 3–19, 2012 and convicted by a jury of first‑degree armed robbery and two second‑degree firearm offenses; he was sentenced August 29, 2012 to an aggregate 12‑year term with an 85% parole‑ineligibility period under NERA.
This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal; certiorari was denied.
On March 3, 2017 Wright filed a timely PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, claiming inadequate pretrial investigation, failure to move to dismiss for a speedy‑trial violation, and other omissions (e.g., not calling the robbery victim).
PCR counsel supplemented Wright’s certifications and argued for an evidentiary hearing; the State countered that Wright’s certification contained a demonstrable falsehood about continuous incarceration and that his claims lacked competent supporting evidence.
Judge DiFabrizio denied relief by written opinion (May 21, 2018), concluding Wright failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance under Strickland and Preciose, some claims were procedurally barred under Rule 3:22‑5/McQuaid, and Barker v. Wingo’s speedy‑trial factors were not met.
The Appellate Division affirmed, adopting the PCR court’s reasoning and holding no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	State's Argument	Wright's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation	The PCR record contains only uncorroborated assertions; Wright failed to meet Preciose prima facie standard	Counsel did not investigate crucial witnesses/evidence, undermining defense	Denied — Wright failed to produce competent evidence of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; no evidentiary hearing warranted
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial	Barker balancing does not support a speedy‑trial violation; prosecutor noted factual inaccuracies in Wright’s certification	Counsel should have moved to dismiss due to violation of Wright’s constitutional speedy‑trial right	Denied — Barker factors not satisfied; even assuming a violation, Wright cannot satisfy Strickland prejudice prong
Whether PCR court erred in refusing an evidentiary hearing	The petition lacked a prima facie showing; statements contained demonstrable falsehoods and were uncorroborated	An evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve factual disputes about counsel’s performance	Denied — Under Preciose and Rule 3:22‑10(b), no prima facie showing; PCR court properly exercised discretion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland framework)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie PCR standard; when an evidentiary hearing is required)
State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464 (procedural default rules for PCR claims)