STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL A. MEDINA (14-08-2470, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1390-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 11, 2021Background
- On Aug. 30, 2012 parole officers searched Daniel Medina's Camden home without a warrant and seized heroin, packaging materials, a stun gun, and $2,747 in cash.
- A grand jury charged Medina with drug and weapons offenses; he pleaded guilty (pursuant to a deal) to first-degree maintaining/operating a CDS production facility and second-degree tampering (in that indictment) and to third-degree aggravated assault in a separate case; he was sentenced to an aggregate 14 years with seven years parole ineligibility.
- Medina filed a PCR petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move to suppress the evidence from the Aug. 30, 2012 search, (2) allowing him to plead guilty to the first‑degree maintaining/operating charge without an adequate factual basis, and (3) agreeing to forfeiture of the seized $2,747.
- The PCR court denied relief, relying on a parole officer’s investigation report to find the officers had reasonable suspicion to search; it also rejected the other claims.
- The Appellate Division held Medina made a prima facie showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression and reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; it affirmed rejection of the plea‑basis claim and deemed the forfeiture claim moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress evidence from a warrantless parole search? | The search was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion under parole regulations; a suppression motion would be meritless. | Counsel was ineffective; the search lacked supervisory approval and reasonable suspicion under N.J.A.C. 10A:72‑6.3; parole report is inadmissible hearsay; suppression likely would have succeeded and affected the plea. | Reversed as to this claim: court finds defendant made a prima facie showing that a suppression motion would likely have succeeded and that counsel may have prejudiced him; remand for evidentiary hearing to determine counsel's reasons and prejudice. |
| Was counsel ineffective for permitting a guilty plea to first‑degree maintaining/operating a CDS production facility (insufficient factual basis / personal‑use defense)? | Plea waived sufficiency; plea colloquy supplied an adequate factual basis (defendant admitted maintaining an operation packaging heroin); no showing of prejudice. | Counsel was deficient in allowing the plea because the State lacked evidence of continuity; defendant possessed drugs for personal use. | Affirmed: plea colloquy gave an adequate factual basis; defendant's plea admissions undermined the personal‑use claim; defendant failed to show a reasonable likelihood he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. |
| Was counsel ineffective in agreeing to the forfeiture of $2,747 seized during the search? | Forfeiture was resolved via a prior civil forfeiture action and default judgment; nothing counsel could undo. | Counsel was ineffective because the funds were lawfully earned and should not have been forfeited. | Rejected as moot: civil forfeiture default judgment preceded the plea; claim cannot provide relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (failure to file suppression motion requires defendant show Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by unlawful invasion)
- State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494 (counsel not per se ineffective for failing to file suppression motion; must evaluate meritoriousness)
- State v. Johnson, 365 N.J. Super. 27 (explaining meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and prejudice standard for unfiled suppression motion)
- State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398 (warrantless searches presumptively invalid; State bears burden to show exception)
- State v. Maples, 346 N.J. Super. 408 (parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy; administrative rules define parole searches)
- State v. Kittrell, 145 N.J. 112 (elements and continuity requirement for maintaining/operating CDS production facility)
- Maldonado v. Burge, 697 F. Supp. 2d 516 (survey of authority concluding petitioner must show reasonable probability suppression motion would succeed)