State v. Terry C. Jones (070733), 219 N.J. 298

defendant Terry Cornelius Jones was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault and two counts of criminal sexual contact based on allegations of rapes in 2003 in New Jersey.
K.A., a 19-year-old at the time, testified to two assaults; DNA evidence on a condom was inconclusive due to possible contamination.
Brame, an alibi witness, did not testify at trial; defense sought to introduce her statement but it was not presented.
Trial counsel did not secure Brame’s appearance or the contested phone records; defense theory centered on fabrication and alibi, not supported by trial testimony.
PCR petition, filed October 14, 2008 and amended March 13, 2009, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds; PCR court denied without an evidentiary hearing, Appellate Division affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certification to consider entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding defendant presented a close but creditable prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing to assess three IAC claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brame’s testimony would create a prima facie IAC claim requiring an evidentiary hearing.	Jones argues Brame’s alibi/corroboration would support his defense and create credibility doubt.	Jones contends Brame’s testimony could bolster defense and cast doubt on K.A.’s account.	Yes; factual disputes require an evidentiary hearing.
Whether the phone records could have supported an IAC claim regarding trial strategy.	Jones asserts phone records would corroborate alibi and undermine State’s timeline.	Jones contends trial counsel failed to introduce records that could have discredited K.A.’s account.	Yes; issues to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.
Whether the sanitization of defendant’s prior conviction was misrepresented to influence his decision to testify.	Jones claims misunderstanding about sanitization affected his decision not to testify.	State argues the voir dire adequately informed him; sanitization claim is unproven on record.	Yes; it warrants an evidentiary hearing to resolve credibility.
Whether the PCR court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing without full development of disputed facts.	Jones contends a full hearing is needed to resolve credibility and material facts.	State maintains the record shows no prima facie IAC and no entitlement to a hearing.	Entitled to an evidentiary hearing on three IAC claims.

State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (set framework for viewing facts in defendant’s favor and prima facie case for PCR)
State v. Preisose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (non-direct appeal route for IAC claims in PCR context; credibility assessment guidance)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (1997) (PCR evidentiary hearing generally warranted when prima facie case shown)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (PCR analogue to habeas corpus; role of evidentiary hearing in IAC claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopts Strickland approach in New Jersey)