State v. Trotman

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: A-2892-23
• Decision Date: 28 October 2025
• Citation: State v. Trotman, A-2892-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct 28, 2025)
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL A. TROTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL A. TROTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-2892-23

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

October 28, 2025

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.

Submitted October 7, 2025

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Ocean County, Indictment No. 19-01-0130 and Accusation No 21-01-0033.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John V. Molitor, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (William Kyle Meighan, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Firko and Perez Friscia.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Michael A. Trotman appeals from the July 21, 2023 trial court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant contends an evidentiary hearing is warranted because he made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on his plea counsels' failure to file motions to suppress. Having reviewed the record, parties' arguments and applicable law, we affirm.

I.

On May 30, 2018, at 7:45 p.m., Officer Peter Manco, working with the Manchester Police Division's Narcotics Enforcement Team, observed defendant driving his vehicle on a county road "with all but its windshield tinted."^[1] Manco followed defendant as they approached a red light at an intersection and observed him exit the roadway into a private convenience store parking lot, travel "around the rear of the building," and directly exit onto another roadway. Manco continued surveilling defendant's vehicle and requested police backup. He stopped defendant's vehicle based on defendant's "improperly tinted windows," N.J.S.A. 39:3-74, and "utilizing public property to avoid" the traffic signal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-66.2.

Manco approached defendant's passenger-side window and smelled a "strong odor of raw marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment."^[2]He also observed "a white powdery residue" on defendant's hands and a "torn clear plastic vacuum[-]seal[ed] type bag on the front passenger seat," which he recognized as common packaging for marijuana distribution. Manco asked defendant to exit his vehicle after receiving defendant's credentials. Defendant complied, stating, "Yeah, I was smoking, I know, that[ is] all it was," which Manco understood to be in response to his detecting the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. When Manco advised defendant that he saw the vacuum-sealed bag, defendant replied, "Go [a]head[,] search it."

Manco read defendant his Miranda^[3] rights, which defendant waived. During an initial search of the vehicle, Manco discovered a hidden compartment and "a large quantity . . . of crack cocaine." He then arrested defendant. Manco continued his search of the vehicle, uncovering: plastic bags containing marijuana and cocaine; "a $100 bill folded to contain marijuana "; oxycodone pills; "a plastic baby bottle containing" suspected liquid codeine; "a portable . . . electronic scale . . . covered in white powdery residue "; two cellular telephones in addition to the one defendant had on his person; and $1,393 in cash. Manco observed one of the phones in the vehicle "beep[] numerous times" and display incoming text messages "consistent with people requesting to purchase [controlled dangerous substances (CDS)]."

On January 23, 2019, an Ocean County grand jury indicted defendant with: third-degree possession of CDS (cocaine), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one); first-degree possession of CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(1) (count two); third-degree possession of CDS (oxycodone), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count three); third-degree possession of CDS (oxycodone) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(5) (count four); third-degree possession of CDS (codeine), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count five); and fourth-degree possession of CDS (marijuana) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(12) (count six).

On December 13, defendant entered a negotiated plea agreement with the State, pleading guilty to count two of the indictment.^[4] On the plea form, defendant indicated that he had no questions concerning his plea and was satisfied with his plea counsel's performance. Further, defendant acknowledged under Question 4(d) of the plea form that had he filed a motion to suppress physical evidence under Rule 3:5-7(d) that the court had denied, he was "not waiving [his] right to appeal." The State agreed to recommend a twelve-year sentence with a five-year period of parole ineligibility. Defendant was released pending sentencing.

On March 4, 2020, at 8:00 a.m., Detective Dominick Puccio and other Brick Township Police Department officers stopped defendant's vehicle after Puccio observed defendant: "ash a cigarette out of the window" multiple times; travel "at a high rate of speed"; and repeatedly drift over the fog line. The officers approached defendant's vehicle and "detected a strong odor of marijuana." Puccio and Detective Matthew Firneno requested defendant to exit the vehicle, and defendant complied. Firneno observed defendant "reach into the rear of his pants and . . . attempt[] to conceal a small item." Detective Sergeant Lawrence Petrola searched defendant and "felt a small package containing a rock substance," which "fell down [defendant's] leg and onto the blacktop. "Puccio retrieved the item and identified it as a plastic bag containing suspected crack-cocaine. The officers arrested defendant and his two passengers that admitted to smoking marijuana with defendant. A search of defendant's vehicle revealed: small amounts of marijuana; clear plastic bags commonly used for drug distribution; and a "multi[-] colored cellular phone. "The same day, defendant was charged with: third-degree possession of CDS (cocaine), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); and second-degree possession of CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2). Additionally, defendant was issued a summons for the disorderly-persons offenses of fourth-degree possession of marijuana, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4), and possession of drug paraphernalia, N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2. Defendant was also issued traffic violations, including for: careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97; failure to maintain lane, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b); operation of a motor vehicle while in possession of CDS, N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1; and littering or throwing debris from his vehicle N.J.S.A. 39:4-64.

On January 11, 2021, defendant pleaded under Accusation No. 21-010033 to one count of second-degree possession of CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(2). Defendant entered into a revised plea agreement, vacating his December 2019 plea. Under the new plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend a: fifteen-year prison term with a five-year period of parole ineligibility^[5] on the indicted count two; and concurrent eightyear prison term on the accusation charge.

During the court's plea colloquy, where another attorney from the same law firm represented defendant, defendant acknowledged: he understood his rights; he was voluntarily pleading guilty; and he had truthfully answered all of the questions on the plea form. Moreover, defendant confirmed he: reviewed the plea form with plea counsel; had "sufficient time to discuss all of these issues with" plea counsel; had no questions, as plea counsel satisfactorily answered them; and was "satisfied with the [legal] services rendered." Defendant again responded to Question 4(d), acknowledging that he had a right to appeal the court's denial of any motion filed to suppress physical evidence.

On May 7, after hearing argument, the court found aggravating factors three, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3) (risk of re-offense); six, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(6) (defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses); and nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9) (need to deter). It also found mitigating factor eleven, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(11) (defendant's imprisonment would entail excessive hardship to himself or his dependent). After weighing the factors, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement.

On July 28, 2022, defendant filed a self-represented PCR petition, arguing both plea counsel were ineffective because they filed no motions to suppress, which were "vital to [his] [d]efense," and "misadvised" him.^[6] On February 13, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental certification in support of his PCR petition. On July 21, after argument where PCR counsel represented defendant, the PCR court issued an order accompanied by a fourteen-page written opinion denying defendant's petition because defendant failed to satisfy the two-prong Strickland test, as adopted by our Supreme Court in Fritz.^[7] Specifically, as to defendant's IAC claim that both plea counsel failed to "advise [defendant] appropriately," the court explained the 2021 plea transcript and plea form demonstrated defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty, and he failed to show plea counsel did not properly advise him of his rights. Further, the court found no factual support indicated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated or that defendant "would be successful on the merits" on any motions to suppress. The court concluded defendant "failed to establish that the deficiencies alleged materially contributed to the outcome in this case."

On appeal, defendant argues the following points:

POINT I

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE PCR COURT'S

...