facts supporting claim in New Jersey

2025Nonetheless, "trial courts ordinarily should grant evidentiary hearings to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of [PCR] and the facts supporting the claim are outside the trial record." Ibid. (citing Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 ). "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63 .

2023A defendant's right to an evidentiary hearing is not automatic, see State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992), but courts should conduct a hearing "to resolve ineffective assistance of counsel claims if a defendant has presented a A-1544-20 13 prima facie claim in support of post-conviction relief and the facts supporting the claim are outside the trial record." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2025Nonetheless, "trial courts ordinarily should grant evidentiary hearings to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of [PCR] and the facts supporting the claim are outside the trial record." Ibid. (citing Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 ). "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63 .

2025Nonetheless, "trial courts ordinarily should grant evidentiary hearings to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of [PCR] and the facts supporting the claim are outside the trial record." Ibid. (citing Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 ). "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462-63 .

2021Moreover, comparing defendant's claims on PCR about his dispute with his attorney to those raised on direct appeal, we disagree that they were "either identical or substantially equivalent." State v. Marshall, 173 N.J. 343, 351 (2002), and therefore were not barred under Rule 3:22-5.

2021See Preciose, 129 N.J. at 461 ; see also State v. Walker, 80 N.J. 187, 194 (1979) (holding, where the facts supporting a claim that trial counsel failed to call an alibi witness were not in the trial record, the claim should be raised in a petition for PCR, not on direct appeal).

2021PCR petitions must be "accompanied by an affidavit or certification by defendant, or by others, setting forth with particularity," State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 312 (2014), "facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance," ibid. (quoting State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013)).

2021PCR petitions must be "accompanied by an affidavit or certification by defendant, or by others, setting forth with particularity," State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 312 (2014), "facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance," ibid. (quoting State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013)).

2021PCR petitions must be "accompanied by an affidavit or certification by defendant, or by others, setting forth with particularity," State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 312 (2014), "facts sufficient to demonstrate counsel's alleged substandard performance," ibid. (quoting State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013)).