STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MATTHEW D. ROLLE (15-07-0387, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3907-19

Background:

Defendant Matthew Rolle was convicted by a jury of six counts arising from a brutal nighttime attack on Christopher Hill and his mother, including two second-degree aggravated assaults; acquitted of two counts of attempted murder.
Victims identified Rolle as an attacker; injuries described as "slicing-type" caused by a "knife or machete type object"; no weapon recovered and co-perpetrators unidentified.
Trial judge sentenced Rolle to an aggregate 26-year custodial term with NERA parole ineligibility; several counts merged or dismissed.
Rolle filed a PCR petition claiming (a) trial counsel ineffectiveness for not objecting to jury instructions using the indictment's phrase "knife or machete type object" rather than the model term "deadly weapon," (b) appellate counsel ineffective for not arguing witness inconsistencies, and (c) the trial court improperly corrected a clerical error in the judgment of conviction without a hearing or his appearance.
The PCR court (Judge Lopez) denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding claims procedurally barred or lacking a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; this appeal followed.
Appellate panel affirmed, adopting Judge Lopez’s reasoning and concluding (inter alia) the weapon description did not disadvantage Rolle, counsel litigated vigorously, jury credibility findings were permissible, and no evidentiary hearing was warranted.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Rolle's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to jury charge language "knife or machete type object"	Charge tracked indictment; model "deadly weapon" definition was given; wording did not prejudice defendant	Using the specific phrase prejudiced jury by framing weapon type and lowered burden on State	Rejected — wording tracked indictment, model deadly-weapon instruction was given, and specificity arguably increased State's burden; no deficiency or prejudice shown
Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising witness inconsistencies on direct appeal	Credibility/weight matters are for the jury; argument would not have succeeded under deferential sufficiency/weight standards	Counsel should have argued inconsistent testimony undermined verdict	Rejected — jurors reasonably credited State's witnesses; appellate argument would not have been fruitful; no Strickland prejudice
Trial court correction of clerical error in judgment without a hearing violated defendant's rights	Correction under Rule 1:13-1 is clerical; Matlack permits ministerial correction without resentencing or defendant present	Court should have held a hearing and allowed defendant to appear before correcting JOC	Rejected — correction was clerical and did not require resentencing or defendant’s presence
Whether PCR judge erred by denying an evidentiary hearing	No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; Preciose/Porter standards not met	Defendant presented sufficient factual allegations to warrant a hearing	Rejected — PCR petition failed to make a prima facie showing; evidentiary hearing not required

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie standard to obtain an evidentiary hearing on PCR)
State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576 (standard for reviewing sufficiency/weight of evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 (clerical corrections to judgments do not require resentencing or defendant presence)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (discusses PCR hearing standards)