STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MAURICE BRACK
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4224-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MAURICE BRACK, a/k/a
MAURICE BARRACK,
MAURICE BLACK,
MAURICE BRACK,
MAURICE L. BRACK,
SOCCA BOPUM, and
SOCKA BOPA,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted November 14, 2018 – Decided December 21, 2018
Before Judges Hoffman and Firko.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Union County, Indictment No. 08-10-0851.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Michael J. Confusione, Designated Counsel;
William P. Welaj, on the brief).
Michael A. Monahan, Acting Union County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Michelle J. Ghali,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Maurice Brack appeals from the Law Division's denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. In his
petition, defendant argued he had ineffective assistance of counsel because a
mistake of fact defense was not raised, and counsel failed to argue the jury's
verdict was against the weight of the evidence. He also argued that he should
not have been waived up to the Law Division because he was only fourteen years
old at the time he fatally beat the victim on August 18, 2006, and that the new
juvenile waiver statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1), enacted on March 1, 2016,
should apply to his case. The PCR court disagreed and denied his petition ,
concluding:
Inasmuch as there exists no grounds on which to grant
petitioner post-conviction relief because his trial and/or
appellate counsel was ineffective, petitioner's argument
that P.L. 2015, c. 89 should be applied retroactively to
his case must be rejected.
While this PCR was pending, State in the Interest of
J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2016) was decided.
Judge Koblitz, for the court, found that P.L. 2015, c. 89
was an ameliorative statute requiring retroactive
application. The J.F. court analyzed the recent
A-4224-16T4
2
legislation under the well-known test announced by our
Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515
(1981).
The Gibbons court ruled that retroactivity should be
given:
1. To statutes about which the legislature either
expressly or impliedly expressed that the law be
retroactive;
2. To statutes which are ameliorative or curative; or
3. "[I]n the absence of a clear expression of
legislative intent that the statute is to be applied
prospectively, such considerations as the
expectations of the parties may warrant
retroactive application."
[Gibbons, 86 N.J. at 522-23.]
Applying those factors to this case, it is clear that there
is no legislative expression regarding retroactivity.
This appeal followed. On appeal, defendant maintains that the new
juvenile waiver statute should be applied retroactively. We disagree and affirm.
On appeal, defendant specifically argues:
POINT I:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF SINCE N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-
26.1(c)(1), WHICH PROVIDES THAT A JUVENILE
CANNOT BE WAIVED TO THE LAW DIVISION
UNLESS THE STATE CAN ESTABLISH THE
A-4224-16T4
3
JUVENILE WAS 15 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AT
THE TIME OF THE DELINQUENT ACT, APPLIED
RETROACTIVELY TO THE DEFENDANT'S CASE,
IN WHICH HE WAS 14 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME
OF THE OFFENSE IN QUESTION.
A. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1) APPLIES
RETROACTIVELY TO THE PRESENT CASE
PURSUANT TO PREVAILING CASE LAW.
B. THE DOCTRINES OF FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS AND MANIFEST INJUSTICE
REQUIRE A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
OF N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1) TO THE
PRESENT CASE.
POINT II:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING
HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY
ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED
TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL AS A
RESULT OF COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ASSERT A
MISTAKE OF FACT DEFENSE AT TRIAL.
I.
When defendant was fourteen years old, he was arrested and charged with
first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), in connection with the brutal,
gang-related murder of Rhykime Richardson, after violently assaulting him and
leaving him to die in a parking lot in Elizabeth. In addition, defendant was
A-4224-16T4
4
charged with third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d), and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), as a juvenile. Following a probable cause hearing on
August 14, 2008, a prior judge waived jurisdiction from the Family Division to
the Law Division.
A Miranda1 hearing was conducted before Judge Scott J. Moynihan, who
found defendant's statement admissible. In October 2010, defendant was
convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, and acquitted as to the
weapons charges. He was sentenced to thirty-four years imprisonment with a
thirty-year parole disqualifier. Defendant's conviction and sentence were
affirmed. State v. Brack, No. A-5479-10 (App. Div. Oct. 22, 2014), certif.
denied, 221 N.J. 287 (2015).
On July 15, 2015, defendant filed a PCR petition. Following argument,
Judge Moynihan denied the petition as to the ineffective assistance of counsel
claims, and reserved decision as to whether the new juvenile waiver statute
applied retroactively in light of this court's decision in State in the Interest of
J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2016). In a comprehensive written opinion,
Judge Moynihan denied the petition without a hearing.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
A-4224-16T4
5
The record in this matter discloses that defendant, whose nickname was
"No Bullshit," was a member of a junior gang, "LOX," and had aspirations of
becoming a member of the Bloods. He hoped to be initiated into the gang within
a few weeks of the crimes, and stated that murdering someone by stabbing them
would have his status "am[p]ed" up, and would put him "up there towards the
Big Homies." Lasheem Lee was one of the so-called "Big Homies." Earlier in
the evening on the day of the murder, defendant attended Lee's birthday party,
hosted by his girlfriend, "Snake." The victim entered the courtyard where the
party was going on and punched Lee in the face, causing a bottle of wine to fall
out of his hand. Lee shouted, "[h]e just hit me," and yelled, "catch his ass," and
"go get that," referring to the victim as he fled.
A crowd of fifty or more people, including defendant, chased after the
victim, who was running for his life. Leading the chase, defendant hopped over
a fence with others and stole bicycles to aid their pursuit through residential
backyards. The victim, being alarmed by the size of the crowd of fifty or sixty
people, yelled to one of the property owners, "I'm getting out of your backyard
but call the police please." After pursuing the victim, defendant ripped his pants
and lacerated his hand and leg. The victim ran away and fell down in a nearby
parking lot, where defendant prevented him from moving, while beating,
A-4224-16T4
6
stabbing, and "stomping him out," along with others, who slammed him with a
bike and told defendant, "he's all yours." The victim was "just curled up like a
baby," and "being beat while he was unconscious," according to defendant.
The victim died from blunt force trauma to his head and from stab wounds
that punctured his lung and caused a "torrential" amount of blood to fill his lung,
according to the autopsy report. Following the victim's death, defendant
referred to himself as "homicide," and he "took pride" in what he did.
II.
"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of
habeas corpus." State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002) (quoting State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992)). The process affords an adjudged criminal
defendant a "last chance to challenge the 'fairness and reliability of a criminal
verdict . . . .'" State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013) (quoting State v. Feaster,
184 N.J. 235, 249 (2005)); see also Rule 3:22-1. "Post-conviction relief is
neither a substitute for direct appeal, [Rule] 3:22-3, nor an opportunity to
relitigate cases already decided on the merits, [Rule] 3:22-5." Preciose, 129 N.J.
at 459; see also State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009).
Merely raising a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an
evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.
A-4224-16T4
7
1999). Rather, trial courts should grant evidentiary hearings and make a
determination on the merits only if the defendant has presented a prima facie
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, material issues of disputed fact lie
outside the record, and resolution of the issues necessitates a hearing. R. 3:22-
10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013). A PCR court deciding whether
to grant an evidentiary hearing "should view the facts in the light most favorable
to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie
claim," and we review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463.
"[W]here the [PCR] court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, we may
exercise de novo review over the factual inferences the trial court has drawn
from the documentary record." State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351, 373
(App. Div. 2014) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004)). Thus, if
warranted, we may "conduct a de novo review of both the factual findings and
legal conclusions of the PCR court." Ibid. (citing Harris, 181 N.J. at 421).
A petition for PCR may be granted upon the following grounds:
(a) Substantial denial in the conviction proceedings of
defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United
States or the Constitution or laws of the State of New
Jersey;
A-4224-16T4
8
(b) Lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the
judgment rendered upon defendant's conviction;
(c) Imposition of sentence in excess of or otherwise
not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law
if raised together with other grounds cognizable under
paragraph (a), (b), or (d) of this rule. Otherwise a claim
alleging the imposition of sentence in excess of or
otherwise not in accordance with the sentence
authorized by law shall be filed pursuant to [Rule] 3:21-
10(b)(5).
(d) Any ground heretofore available as a basis for
collateral attack upon a conviction by habeas corpus or
any other common-law or statutory remedy.
(e) A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based
on trial counsel's failure to file a direct appeal of the
judgment of conviction and sentence upon defendant's
timely request.
[R. 3:22-2.]
III.
Defendant argues the PCR judge erred in failing to apply N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-
26.1(c)(1) retroactively pursuant to J.F., and consequently, his conviction must
be vacated and this matter should be remanded to the Family Court for an
adjudication. We disagree.
In J.F., we undertook a detailed analysis of the revised waiver statute and
affirmed the trial court's denial of a waiver request involving a murder allegedly
A-4224-16T4
9
committed by a fourteen-year-old minor. 446 N.J. Super. at 41-42. The trial
court in J.F. found, "strong and compelling prospects for rehabilitation
substantially outweigh[ed] the standard of the attenuated argument of deterrence
in the case." Id. at 51. The trial judge made the waiver decision on August 13,
2015, three days before the Governor signed the revised waiver statute into law.
Id. at 52. The trial judge did not apply the new statute that became effective on
March 1, 2016. Id. at 52-53.
We noted "[u]nder the revised waiver statute, a juvenile cannot be waived
to the Law Division unless the State can establish that 'the juvenile was [fifteen]
years of age or older at the time of the delinquent act.'" Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-26.1(c)(1)).
We concluded the revised statute applied to J.F. because the new statute:
ameliorate[d] the punitive sentencing previously meted
out to adolescent offenders after waiver. The
legislative action was also intended to address the
treatment needs of children. The increase in the
minimum waiver age is part of that emphasis on
rehabilitation rather than punishment, a part of the
effort to ensure that children do not become prey to
adult inmates nor suffer the many societal
consequences of an adult criminal record.
[Id. at 55 (footnotes omitted).]
A-4224-16T4
10
Furthermore, we noted "[t]he State ma[de] no argument that it would
suffer an 'unconstitutional interference with a vested right or a manifest
injustice.'" Id. at 56 (quoting Ardan v. Board of Review, 444 N.J. Super. 576,
589 (App. Div. 2016)). "Retroactively applying the age requirement of the
revised waiver statute would impose no 'unfairness [or] inequity.'" Id. at 56-57
(alteration in original) (quoting Oberhand v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 193 N.J.
558, 572 (2008)).
Here, Judge Moynihan correctly found that: "The difference between this
case and J.F. is that J.F's waiver hearing was decided on August 13, 2015, three
days after the enactment of P.L. 2015, c.89. . . . [and that] J.F. had not been
adjudicated, nor his disposition entered, prior to the passage of the new law."
(footnote omitted).
Brack was sentenced prior to the enactment of the new law thus
distinguishing his case from the holding in J.F. "Generally, newly enacted laws
are applied prospectively." Johnson v. Roselle EZ Quick LLC, 226 N.J. 370,
387 (2016). The presumption can only be overcome by showing the Legislature
intended retroactive application.
In Ardan, our Court reiterated settled rules of statutory construction
"based on our long-held notions of fairness and due process." 231 N.J. at 610
A-4224-16T4
11
(quoting James v. N.J. Mfrs. Co., 216 N.J. 552, 563 (2014)). As instructed in
Ardan, "[w]e consider (1) 'whether the Legislature intended to give the statute
retroactive application' and (2) whether retroactive application 'will result in
either an unconstitutional interference with vested rights or a manifest
injustice.'" Ibid. (quoting James, 216 N.J. at 563).
For these reasons we affirm Judge Moynihan's decision not to
retroactively apply N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1). To the extent we have not
addressed defendant's other arguments for the retroactive application of N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-26.1(c)(1), it is because those arguments are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
IV.
Turning to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a two-part
test must be satisfied by demonstrating that: (1) counsel's performance was
deficient, and (2) the deficient performance actually prejudiced the accused's
defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 682 (1984); see also State v.
Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).
In reviewing ineffective assistance claims, courts apply a strong
presumption that a defendant's trial counsel "rendered adequate assistance and
made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional
A-4224-16T4
12
judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. "[C]omplaints 'merely of matters of
trial strategy' will not serve to ground a constitutional claim of inadequacy . . .
." Fritz, 105 N.J. at 54 (quoting State v. Williams, 39 N.J. 471, 489 (1963)).
"To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of succeeding under" the
Strickland/Fritz test. Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463. To demonstrate the likelihood
of succeeding under the Strickland/Fritz test, a defendant "must do more than
make bald assertions . . . . [and] must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
counsel's alleged substandard performance." Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. at 170.
Defendant contends that his trial counsel erred by failing "to raise [a]
mistake of fact doctrine" defense and jury charge because defendant did not
intend to kill the victim, but only to "rough him up." N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4 defines
mistake of fact in relevant part as follows:
a. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is
a defense if the defendant reasonably arrived at the
conclusion underlying the mistake and:
(1) It negatives the culpable mental state required to
establish the offense; or
(2) The law provides that the state of mind established
by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
b. Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise
afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is
A-4224-16T4
13
not available if the defendant would be guilty of another
offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such
case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the
defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the
offense of which he may be convicted to those of the
offense of which he would be guilty had the situation
been as he supposed.
As noted by the judge, a mistake of fact defense is commonly used "when
a defendant asserts self-defense, defense of others or defense of property." In
this case, the facts are a far cry from the statutory intent because "no one could
reasonably believe [defendant's] actions were necessary to protect Lee." The
victim "posed no threat after he ran from the group." After fleeing, he was
thrown to the ground, and "stabbed and beaten with deadly force."
Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that defendant's claim
of ineffective assistance of trial counsel does not fall below the requisite
standard under either prong of the Strickland/Fritz test.
We also find no merit to defendant's claim that he was denied effective
assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue that the verdict was against
the weight of the evidence. Procedurally, a motion for a new trial was not made
as required by Rule 2:10-1, therefore, the argument could not have been raised
on appeal.
A-4224-16T4
14
Here, we conclude that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of
ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland/Fritz test, and there was
no abuse of discretion in the denial of his PCR petition without an evidentiary
hearing.
Affirmed.
A-4224-16T4
15
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
