NJ Court Denies PCR Appeal in State v. John Denofa, Upholds Ruling

State of New Jersey v. John Denofa

Docket No. A-0281-22

Decided January 6, 2025

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from a modified order entered on July 19, 2022, which denied his third petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) and a motion for a new trial.

In 2002, a jury convicted defendant of the first-degree murder of Rachel Siani, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2). Several months later, in 2003, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with thirty years of parole ineligibility. After being convicted, defendant filed a direct appeal, three petitions for PCR, including numerous amendments to those petitions, and, in federal court, a petition for habeas corpus.

In 2003, defendant filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. In that appeal, he raised four arguments: (1) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the jurisdictional issue of whether Rachel Siani was murdered in New Jersey; (2) the trial court erred in admitting suggestive identifications of defendant; (3) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included charge of aggravated manslaughter; and (4) his sentence was excessive. The Appellate Court rejected defendant’s second and third arguments but reversed his conviction on the jurisdictional issue and did not address defendant’s sentencing argument.

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstated defendant’s murder conviction, holding that the trial evidence did not clearly indicate that the location of the murder was at issue, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the crime was committed in New Jersey. The Supreme Court then remanded the matter to the trial court for the entry of judgment consistent with its opinion, but no new judgment of conviction was entered. Instead, the record reflected that the judgment of conviction entered on February 21, 2003, was either left in place or reinstated.

In 2008, defendant filed his first petition for PCR. The first petition was denied by the Law Division, and the Appellate Division affirmed that decision on appeal. The Supreme Court denied defendant’s request for certification to review that decision.

While the appeal of the denial of his first PCR petition was still under review, defendant filed a second petition. Following an appeal and a remand for consideration of all of defendant’s contentions, on December 17, 2021, Judge McBride denied defendant’s second PCR petition.

Defendant also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court prior to the trial court’s consideration of defendant’s second PCR petition. That habeas petition was denied.

In 2021, while his second petition was on remand, defendant filed a third PCR petition. Judge McBride initially denied that petition without prejudice. After denying the second petition, Judge McBride reinstated the third petition and heard argument on that petition on April 1, 2022.

On June 28, 2022, Judge McBride issued an order and written opinion denying defendant’s third PCR petition. In his opinion, Judge McBride reviewed and analyzed defendant’s twelve claims of ineffective assistance of the PCR counsel who had represented defendant on his second petition. Judge McBride rejected all those claims without an evidentiary hearing, with one exception. The exception was defendant’s claim that one of his prior counsel should have moved to reinstate his direct appeal to consider his argument that his sentence was excessive. Judge McBride also considered and rejected defendant’s application for a new trial based on the alleged cumulative errors at his trial. Judge McBride found that the claims for a new trial were procedurally barred and lacked substantive merit. On July 19, 2022, Judge McBride modified the order denying defendant’s third PCR petition and his motion for a new trial. Defendant then appealed from the modified June 19, 2022, order.

On appeal, defendant contended that: (1) The PCR Court’s findings that there were no material issues of disputed facts and that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted were not based on credible, objective evidence in the record and were also impermissibly based on credibility determinations. (2) The Appellate Court should remand for resentencing because the sentencing court failed to perform the required qualitative analysis and did not justify a life sentence.

After conducting a de novo review of defendant’s arguments of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Appellate division rejected them and affirmed Judge McBride’s decision substantially for the reasons set forth in his written opinion. The court also affirmed Judge McBride’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial. However, in order to avoid another appeal, motion, or application, the court reinstated defendant’s direct appeal, limited to his contention that his sentence was excessive. This had been overlooked by the lower courts due to procedural complexities caused by defendant’s multiple filings, some of which were filed while prior appeals or petitions were pending. The sentencing issue will be heard on Part E’s sentencing only calendar on February 11, 2025.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Municipal and Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions for post-conviction relief. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.