State v. Terrence Miller (068558), 76 A.3d 1250

Background

Defendant Terrence Miller, charged with drug offenses, met his newly-assigned Mercer County public defender for the first time the morning his suppression hearing was set to begin after an intra-office reassignment days before trial.
New counsel prepared for ~10–11 hours, had no prior contact with Miller, and conferred with him for roughly 55 minutes (two brief meetings) before the court session.
Counsel requested a continuance so client and attorney could confer and plan; the trial court denied the adjournment, proceeded with the suppression hearing, and later denied the suppression motion.
Trial began the next day; the jury convicted Miller on remaining drug counts, and he received a multi-year sentence.
On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed in a 2–1 decision; the dissent argued denial of adjournment violated fairness and warranted reversal absent a showing of prejudice. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted review limited to the dissent’s issue, remanded for fact-finding, and then affirmed the Appellate Division.

Issues

Issue	Miller's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether denial of adjournment that limited time to confer with newly assigned counsel required reversal without showing prejudice	Denial deprived Miller of effective assistance and rapport with counsel; prejudice should be presumed when adjournment is denied under these facts	Assigned counsel is not the defendant's choice; trial courts have broad calendar discretion and reversal requires a showing of prejudice	Denial was within discretion under Hayes balancing; no presumption of prejudice — reversal requires showing of prejudice per Strickland/Cronic/Fritz
Proper standard for reviewing adjournment requests to obtain counsel or time to consult	Presume prejudice when denial prevents development of attorney-client relationship	Apply deferential Hayes balancing factors and require actual prejudice absent extraordinary circumstances	Apply Hayes factors (length, prior continuances, inconvenience, legitimacy, defendant's role, other counsel readiness, prejudice, complexity); require prejudice unless Cronic-type exception applies
Scope of constitutional right to "meaningful attorney-client relationship"	Denial of opportunity to build rapport violates due process and effective-assistance guarantees	No federal or state constitutional right to guaranteed rapport; effective assistance requires competence and loyalty but not guaranteed rapport	No constitutional right to a "meaningful relationship." The right is to effective (competent, conflict-free) counsel, not assured rapport (Morris/Slappy)
Whether case met Cronic/Fritz exception to require presumed prejudice	Miller: circumstances (meeting first time on trial day, inadequate preparation) are so likely to prejudice that relief should be presumed	State: counsel was experienced, prepared, met client, and there is no showing of prejudice	Court declined to expand Cronic; facts did not establish the extraordinary deprivation that would trigger presumed prejudice; affirmed conviction

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumption of prejudice only in narrow, extraordinary circumstances)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (no constitutional right to a guaranteed "meaningful relationship" with counsel; courts have broad discretion on continuances)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel of choice; indigent defendants have right to appointed counsel but not counsel of their choice)
Gonzalez‑Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (erroneous denial of choice of retained counsel is complete deprivation, but does not extend to appointed counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (applies Strickland; declines to presume prejudice where experienced counsel had limited preparation)
State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (2011) (adopts multi‑factor balancing test for adjournment requests to retain or secure counsel)
State v. Cottle, 194 N.J. 449 (2008) (presumed prejudice where conflict of interest amounted to per se denial of effective counsel)