Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2026 27 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Preciosegreen2 sentences2026State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992). 2026State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992). | 17 | 17 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025In its February 25, 2021 decision, the PCR court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to establish a prima facie claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopting the Strickland test in New Jersey). 2024On this point, the judge determined that "even if defense counsel's failure to request that members of the jury be individually questioned was in error, . . . [defendant] was not prejudiced by that error, because all the jurors indicated that they had followed the judge's instructions and had not behaved improperly." Applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the judge rejected defendant's arguments and issued a written opinion denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. | 8 | 14 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2026State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). 2026State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2025In its February 25, 2021 decision, the PCR court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to establish a prima facie claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopting the Strickland test in New Jersey). 2021The court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to establish a prim a facie case of ineffective assistance of her plea counsel under the two-pronged standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997). 2024See Marshall, 148 N.J. at 158 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Lombardogreen1 sentence2026The court, relying on State v. Lombardo, 20 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Susan Hyland (079028) (Camden County and Statewide)green1 sentence2025See State v. Hyland, 238 N.J. 135, 145 (2019) (holding illegal sentences are those that "exceed the penalties authorized for a particular offense," or sentences that "are not authorized by law"); see also State v. Acevedo, 205 N.J. 40, 45-47 (2011) (holding claims of excessive sentence are not available on PCR and may only be raised on direct appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Acevedogreen1 sentence2025See State v. Hyland, 238 N.J. 135, 145 (2019) (holding illegal sentences are those that "exceed the penalties authorized for a particular offense," or sentences that "are not authorized by law"); see also State v. Acevedo, 205 N.J. 40, 45-47 (2011) (holding claims of excessive sentence are not available on PCR and may only be raised on direct appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2021State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 291 (App. Div. 2018) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004)); see also State v. Blake, 444 3 Thereafter, defendant filed a direct appeal challenging only her sentence on our excessive sentence calendar. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oscar Porter (069223)green1 sentence2020A hearing on a PCR petition is only required when a defendant establishes "a prima facie case in support of [PCR]," the judge determines that there are disputed issues of material fact "that cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record," and the judge "finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b); see also State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Wade
green
1 sentence2025The judge found the three eyewitness identifications of defendant were confirmatory identifications, which did not require a hearing under United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). 1 The judge also determined the identifications would not have been suppressed had trial counsel filed a Wade motion because they were not show-up identifications, and therefore, not impermissibly suggestive and not substantially likely to cause misidentification. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Slater
green
1 sentence2022The judge, who had presided over defendant's competency hearing, taken his plea and sentenced him to prison, denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. 1 State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Cofield
green
1 sentence2018Defendant appeals, reprising the arguments he made to the trial court. 1 State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.