State v. Parker
212 N.J. 269
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Defendant, then 17, questioned about Fletcher's death; last person seen with Fletcher.
- Defendant admitted with Tremaine Paige to stabbing Fletcher, under Polo Mike's orders, after Polo Mike demanded the gun back.
- Paige's statement largely corroborated defendant's account of Polo Mike's coercion and threats.
- Indicted on murder, conspiracy, weapons offenses, hindering, tampering, and endangering; family court waived jurisdiction; defendant pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter with a 25-year sentence and parole ineligibility.
- Petition for post-conviction relief filed in 2007; counsel claimed ineffective assistance and other defenses; trial judge denied relief; Appellate Division affirmed; this Court granted certification to address oral argument rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is entitled to oral argument in post-conviction relief petitions. | State contends no right to oral argument; discretionary. | Defendant seeks oral argument as a matter of right or necessity. | Defendant is entitled to oral argument; remand for proceedings. |
| Whether the trial judge abused discretion by denying oral argument without a waiver. | State argues discretion supported by record. | Argument could aid the defense and clarify issues. | Discretion misapplied; remand to permit oral argument. |
| What is the governing standard for reviewing Sixth Amendment claims in post-conviction relief and the role of counsel. | Standard should mirror Strickland analysis as applied in post-conviction relief. | Ineffective assistance argued; merits require review under Strickland-Fritz. | De novo review; Strickland-Fritz standard governs; counsel's performance and prejudice required. |
| How should trial judges apply Rue and Mayron factors when deciding on oral argument? | Presumption in favor of oral argument should guide decision. | Judicial discretion may dispense with argument based on merits. | Presumption in favor of oral argument should be considered; on remand, reasons tailored to the application. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (N.J. 2011) (meaningful post-conviction relief hearing, not pro forma)
- State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2002) (post-conviction relief last chance to raise constitutional errors)
- State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (N.J. 1997) (post-conviction relief safeguards; last chance)
- State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 417 (N.J. 1966) (analogue to habeas corpus; reliefs in criminal context)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (N.J. 1987) (Sixth Amendment standard for counsel effectiveness)
- State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (presumption favoring oral argument; discretionary factors)
- State v. Flores, 228 N.J. Super. 586 (N.J. App. Div. 1988) (absence of explicit Rule 3:22 directive on oral argument)
- Rue (cited within Rue), 175 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2002) (cited above as principal authority on relief review)