State v. Leonce
| Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1446-18T4 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PETER LEONCE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Messano and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 11-02-0440.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Karen A. Lodesetro, Designated Counsel on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Regina M. Oberholzer, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Defendant, Peter Leonce, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He was convicted at trial for his role in a gang-related double homicide. The jury found him guilty of murder with respect to one of the victims, twenty-three-year-old Michael Hawkins, and aggravated manslaughter with respect to the other victim, eighteen-year-old Muriah Huff. Defendant, who was a minor when the crimes were committed, raises numerous contentions in this appeal. Most were decided by the PCR court without an evidentiary hearing. All of defendant's PCR claims assert that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at various stages of the criminal proceedings.
With respect to all but two of defendant's contentions, the PCR judge, Judge John Thomas Kelly, concluded that defendant failed to establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Judge Kelly found that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance with respect to the State's motion to transfer the case from juvenile to adult criminal court. Judge Kelly nonetheless concluded that defendant, who was one month shy of his eighteenth birthday when the homicides were committed, did not suffer prejudice from counsel's failure to contest the transfer of jurisdiction to adult criminal court. Judge Kelly concluded that it was not reasonably probable that the outcome would have been different had defendant opposed the State's waiver motion.
After convening a three-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Kelly further found that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to thoroughly investigate a potential alibi witness. However, based on his observation of the witness's testimony at the hearing, Judge Kelly determined that he would have been a poor alibi witness and ultimately would have caused more harm than good for the defense had he testified at trial. Judge Kelly thus found that defendant failed to establish that he suffered prejudice from counsel's failure to thoroughly investigate that witness's potential testimony.
We have reviewed the record in light of defendant's contentions, the parties' briefs, including defendant's pro se submissions, and the applicable legal principles that govern this appeal. We agree with the PCR court that with two exceptions, defendant's PCR claims are either procedurally barred or else fail to meet the Strickland1 standard for proving that counsel's performance fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance. With respect to defendant's juvenile waiver contention, we agree with the PCR judge that while counsel's performance was deficient, it is not reasonably probable that jurisdiction would have remained in juvenile court had counsel advised defendant to contest the State's waiver motion. We also agree with the PCR court that while counsel wasobligated to more thoroughly investigate the potential alibi witness, his testimony at trial would not have changed the verdict and if anything would have undermined the defense. We therefore affirm the denial of PCR substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kelly's thorough and cogent oral opinion.
We briefly summarize the procedural history leading up to this appeal. Defendant was one of nine persons who were charged in connection with the gang-related double homicide. The State filed a motion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26 (repealed 2016) to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile to adult criminal court. The Family Part judge granted the application after defendant waived his right to a hearing on advice of counsel.
Defendant was thereafter charged by indictment with multiple counts including (1) first-degree murder, (2) first-degree felony murder, (3) first-degree kidnapping, (4) first-degree conspiracy to commit murder/kidnapping, (5) third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, (6) fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and (7) third-degree hindering apprehension or prosecution.
Defendant moved to suppress an incriminating statement he gave to police during a custodial interrogation. The trial court conducted an evidentiaryhearing after which it denied defendant's suppression motion. The case proceeded to trial. The jury found defendant guilty of the murder of Michael Hawkins, the aggravated manslaughter of Muriah Huff, criminal restraint, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and hindering apprehension.
The trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of forty-five years in state prison. More specifically, the judge sentenced defendant to a thirty-year term of imprisonment and parole ineligibility on the murder conviction and a consecutive fifteen-year sentence subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, on the aggravated manslaughter conviction. The sentences imposed on the remaining counts run concurrently to the murder/aggravated manslaughter consecutive sentences.
On direct appeal, we affirmed the trial convictions and consecutive sentences but remanded for the trial court to merge the conspiracy counts with the substantive offenses. State v. Leonce, No. A-3711-13 (App. Div. Sept. 16, 2016). The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Leonce, 229 N.J. 602 (2017).
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition that was followed by an amended petition submitted on defendant's behalf by assigned counsel. Defendant raised nine distinct issues for the PCR court's consideration. All of defendant's PCRcontentions assert that he received ineffective assistance of counsel pertaining to the waiver to adult court, the motion to suppress his statement, the jury trial, and the sentencing hearing. Judge Kelley ordered an evidentiary hearing only on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call three specified witnesses at trial. The PCR court denied defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the other contentions. After hearing oral argument, Judge Kelly denied defendant's petition for PCR for reasons spelled out in a comprehensive and highly detailed oral opinion that spans forty-nine pages of transcript. Defendant now appeals from that decision.
The facts adduced at trial concerning defendant's role in the brutal killing of Michael Hawkins and Muriah Huff are recounted in our prior opinion and need only be briefly summarized in this opinion. Defendant was a member of the Luerdes Park Piru gang, which is associated with the Bloods. Michael Hawkins was a member of a rival gang, the Hoover Crips. Muriah Huff was not affiliated with a gang.
On February 22, 2010, both victims visited the residence of codefendant Dennis Welch on Berkley Street in Camden. Other members of the Luerdes Park Piru gang lived in that house, which was rented by Welch's mother. Gangmembers who were present believed Hawkins had previously stolen a bottle of liquor from them. At some point, Huff left Welch's bedroom and went downstairs. Hawkins remained in the bedroom with defendant, Welch, and several other Luerdes Park Piru gang members. An upper-echelon gang member ordered female gang members in the house to distract Huff. After a few minutes, Hawkins began screaming, "stop, please help me." Huff tried to go upstairs when she heard the screaming but the female gang members prevented her from assisting Hawkins.
Defendant, Welch, and several other gang members kicked Hawkins and beat him with their fists and a baseball bat. They tied him up, placed duct tape over his mouth, and shoved him into the bedroom closet. They then rummaged through Hawkins's backpack and discovered a piece of paper linking him to the rival Crips gang. They took a photograph of Hawkins showing him bound and beaten and electronically sent the photo to other Luerdes Park Piru gang members with instruction to come to the house immediately.
When they arrived at the house, the other gang members, including the gang leader, proceeded upstairs to Welch's bedroom. One of the gang members opened the closet door whereupon the leader shot Hawkins in the head five times from a distance of six inches. Hawkins was still breathing, however. The leadertold the other members, including defendant, to "finish him." The leader and Welch then went downstairs to confront Huff. The gang members remaining in the bedroom proceeded to beat Hawkins to death, breaking every bone in his face.
Defendant went downstairs to find the gang leader screaming at Huff that she "set him up." Huff pleaded for her life, claiming she "didn't do it." The gang leader put his gun against Huff's head and pulled the trigger, but the gun was empty. He then struck Huff with the gun twice in the face and ordered the female gang members to "F her up." As instructed, the females began beating Huff.
During the attack, Huff pleaded for the female assailants to stop, screaming that "she didn't know, and she didn't do it." Welch's mother, who rented the house, attempted to intervene. The female gang members ignored her, and Welch escorted his mother to her bedroom and told her to stay there.
The assault on Huff continued mercilessly. One of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial