STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID COMPANIONI (04-04-0497, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2232-19

Defendant David Companioni pled guilty in 2004 to third-degree possession with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school and was sentenced to five years probation with a condition to complete a long-term inpatient drug program.
He completed probation and the treatment program; trial counsel represented him at plea and sentencing and did not file an appeal.
On February 19, 2019—almost 15 years after the plea—Companioni filed his first PCR petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective (failure to investigate/search-and-seizure, provide discovery, move to withdraw plea, file an appeal, and warn about extended-term eligibility).
The PCR judge denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, ruling the petition was time-barred under R. 3:22-12(a)(1) because Companioni failed to show excusable neglect or that enforcing the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice; the judge also found the claims lacked merit under Strickland.
Companioni appealed, arguing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims and that his delay was excusable such that the time-bar should be relaxed.

Issue	State's Argument	Companioni's Argument	Held
Whether PCR should be heard despite delay (timeliness under R.3:22-12(a)(1))	The petition is time-barred; Companioni offered no facts showing excusable neglect or fundamental injustice	Delay was due to lack of awareness of counsel's ineffectiveness within five years; thus excusable neglect and fundamental injustice exist	Denied. Petition filed ~10 years beyond the rule; no factual support for excusable neglect or fundamental injustice, so time-bar applies
Whether evidentiary hearing is required on ineffective assistance claims (investigation, discovery, plea withdrawal, appeal, warning re: extended-term)	Claims are bald assertions without record support; would fail Strickland/Preciose; no hearing warranted	Trial counsel was ineffective on multiple fronts and thus an evidentiary hearing is required	Denied. Even on merits claims are conclusory and lack evidentiary support; Strickland standard not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (applies Strickland in New Jersey and governs PCR ineffective-assistance review)
State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583 (2002) (explains narrow circumstances to relax PCR time bar)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (factors for excusable neglect and fundamental injustice analysis)
State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (delay increases burden to justify late PCR filings)
State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div. 2009) (excusable neglect requires more than plausible explanation)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (conclusory allegations without record support insufficient for PCR)