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.
208 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 108 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. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2026The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing because they "must do more than make bald assertions that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 2026Indeed, "[i]f the court A-0153-25 9 perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to [PCR], . . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining the mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions"). | 166 | 194 |
State v. Oscar Porter (069223)green2 sentences2026The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing because they "must do more than make bald assertions that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 2026State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); see also State v. Peoples, 446 N.J. Super. 245, 254 (App. Div. 2016) (holding "[t]he mere raising of a claim of IAC does A-3645-23 8 not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing" (citing State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999))). | 7 | 13 |
State of New Jersey v. Edward Peoplesgreen2 sentences2026State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); see also State v. Peoples, 446 N.J. Super. 245, 254 (App. Div. 2016) (holding "[t]he mere raising of a claim of IAC does A-3645-23 8 not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing" (citing State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999))). 2026"The mere raising of a claim of [ineffective assistance of counsel] does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing." State v. Peoples, 446 N.J. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2026Indeed, "[i]f the court A-0153-25 9 perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to [PCR], . . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining the mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions"). 2026Indeed, "[i]f the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to [PCR], . . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining the mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions"). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Brewstergreen2 sentences2026Indeed, "[i]f the court A-0153-25 9 perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to [PCR], . . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining the mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions"). 2026Indeed, "[i]f the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to [PCR], . . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted." Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 401 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining the mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing and the defendant "must do more than make bald assertions"). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Preciosegreen2 sentences2025Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999), because the court reviewing claims of ineffective assistance has the discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing only if the defendant makes a prima facie showing in support of the requested relief, State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992). 2025Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999), because the court reviewing claims of ineffective assistance has the discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing only if the defendant makes a prima facie showing in support of the requested relief, State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bringhurstgreen1 sentence2026Rather, a court should hold an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition only if the defendant establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR; meaning "there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record," and "an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b); see also Porter, 216 N.J. at 354 (same); State v. Bringhurst, 401 N.J. Super. 421, 436-37 (App. Div. 2008) (holding a "[d]efendant must demonstrate a prima facie case for relief before an evidentiary hearing is required, and the court is not obligated to | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nash
green
1 sentence2026A court should hold an evidentiary hearing on a petition only if the defendant establishes a prima facie case in support of PCR, "there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record," and "an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b). "[W]e will uphold the PCR court's [factual] findings that are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Gideon, 244 N.J. 538 , 551 (2021) (quoting Nash, 212 N.J. at 540 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2020Instead, a defendant must first establish a prima facie claim 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.