State v. Pennington
14 A.3d 790
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Pennington robbed York and Pomeroy at gunpoint after August 6, 1993, deposit run; cash taken and suspect fled to a dark car.
- York identified Pennington from a photo array after initial photos lacked eyeglass wear; later confirmations intensified identification.
- Pomeroy also identified Pennington; Stillwell identified Pennington from a photo array after seeing a car matching prior alert.
- Pennington was previously serving an extended-term life sentence for another offense; he was sentenced to a second extended term in this case.
- The sentencing court imposed the second extended term consecutively to the prior term, though the offenses occurred at different times and proceedings.
- Pennington sought post-conviction relief; the PCR court denied relief but the Appellate Division vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second extended term was illegally imposed | Pennington contends 2C:44-5(b)(1) prohibits a second extended term for different proceedings. | State argues Williams and Reldan authorize the second extended term under different circumstances. | Second extended term illegal; vacate and remand for resentencing. |
| Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective | Pennington asserts prejudice from inadequate pretrial preparation on out-of-court procedures. | State contends no prima facie showing of ineffectiveness; Wade hearing not necessary. | No reversible error; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Whether out-of-court identification by a police witness was reliable and admissible | Pennington challenges reliability of eyewitness identification. | State maintains identifications were reliable and properly admitted. | Issue deemed meritless; arguments not warranting discussion; barred on direct appeal for the reliability claim. |
| Whether the PCR court erred by not sua sponte reviewing trial counsel's deficiencies through an evidentiary hearing | Pennington argues the PCR court should have held an evidentiary hearing to assess counsel performance. | State argues no prima facie case shown; no hearing required. | PCR court did not err; no evidentiary hearing warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennington v. State, 193 N.J. 186 (N.J. 2007) (statutory interpretation of 2C:44-5(b)(1) and lenity principle)
- State v. Williams, 299 N.J. Super. 264 (App.Div. 1997) (permissibility of second extended term; reliance on Reldan)
- State v. Reldan, 231 N.J. Super. 232 (App.Div. 1989) (second extended term across different proceedings)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR standard and burden of proof)
- Model Penal Code and Commentaries, 7.06 (1985) (timing of trials and limitations on consecutive sentences)
- State v. D.A., 191 N.J. 158 (2007) (legislative history in Code-based interpretations)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (line of identification procedures and due process)
- State v. Froland, 193 N.J. 186 (2007) (strict construction of penal statutes in criminal cases)