A direct appeal looks at what was on the record. Post-conviction relief looks at what should have been.

The trial is over. The direct appeal is over. The conviction is on the record, and the sentence is being served. And something about the case never sat right — the lawyer who didn't return calls, the witness who was never called, the discovery that was never produced, the expert who was never retained, the plea offer you only learned about after the verdict. Post-conviction relief exists for these cases. It is not a second appeal. It is not a do-over. It is a constitutionally-grounded procedural mechanism for cases where something fundamental went wrong but was not, or could not be, addressed on the direct appeal.

Most PCR petitions fail. They fail because the standards are demanding — Strickland requires not just deficient performance but proof of prejudice. They fail because the five-year clock has run. They fail because the petition rests on bare allegations rather than specific facts and sworn certifications. The petitions that succeed are the ones that build the prima facie case methodically, attach the right exhibits, and address the procedural bars head-on.

What PCR is — and what it is not.

Under R. 3:22source, a post-conviction relief petition is filed in the Superior Court of the county where the conviction was entered, after the direct appeal is decided (or after the time to appeal has expired). It is heard by a judge of the Criminal Division — sometimes the trial judge, sometimes a different judge. PCR is not a vehicle for re-arguing the same trial errors raised on direct appeal — those are barred by R. 3:22-5source. PCR is the vehicle for matters outside the trial record:

• Ineffective assistance of trial counsel. What trial counsel investigated, decided not to investigate, prepared for, or failed to prepare for — all of which usually do not appear on the trial transcript.
• Newly discovered evidence. Evidence that existed at the time of trial but was not discoverable through reasonable diligence — most often forensic evidence, witness recantations supported by other proof, or undisclosed Brady material.
• Constitutional error. Violations the defense could not have raised at trial or on direct appeal — for example, Brady v. Maryland violations that surfaced after appellate proceedings.
• Illegal sentence. A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum, violates double jeopardy, or rests on an improper factual finding.
• Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Failure to raise issues on direct appeal that would have produced reversal.

Ineffective assistance of counsel — the Strickland framework.

The single most common PCR ground is ineffective assistance. The federal standard was established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted in New Jersey under State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). Two prongs, both required:

1. Deficient performance. Trial counsel's conduct fell below the objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. The court applies a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strategic decisions made after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable; strategic decisions made without investigation receive far less deference.
2. Prejudice. There is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome would have been different. The standard is less than "more likely than not" but more than a possibility — it is enough to undermine confidence in the result.

Common categories of deficient performance:

• Failure to investigate. Not interviewing identified witnesses, not visiting the crime scene, not pursuing alibi evidence, not retaining experts on contested issues.
• Failure to consult appropriate experts. Forensic challenges to DNA, ballistics, fingerprint, blood-spatter, or accident-reconstruction evidence — without an opposing expert, the State's expert is effectively unrebutted.
• Failure to litigate suppression motions. Not challenging an unconstitutional stop, search, seizure, identification procedure, or interrogation. Suppression is often case-dispositive; the failure to move at all is a frequent PCR ground.
• Failure to communicate plea offers. Under Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to communicate all plea offers and explain their implications. Failure to do so — or providing erroneous advice that caused rejection of a favorable offer — is IAC.
• Failure to object at trial. Where inadmissible evidence was admitted without objection, the failure both compromises the trial and forfeits appellate review under plain-error standards.
• Failure to preserve issues for appeal. Trial counsel's failure to make a record on critical issues effectively eliminates appellate remedy.

The five-year clock — and how it can be relaxed.

Under R. 3:22-12(a)(1)source, a first PCR petition must be filed within five years of the judgment of conviction. The deadline is not jurisdictional but is enforced strictly. State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992), and its progeny govern relaxation: the petitioner must show (a) the delay is excusable, and (b) enforcement of the time bar would result in fundamental injustice. Excusable delay can include trial counsel's failure to advise the client of PCR rights, attorney abandonment, intervening discovery of newly discovered evidence, and circumstances genuinely beyond the petitioner's control. Fundamental injustice typically requires a substantial showing on the merits — the time bar will not be relaxed for petitions that ultimately fail the prima facie test.

Second or subsequent PCR petitions are subject to even tighter limits under R. 3:22-12(a)(2)source — generally one year from a newly recognized constitutional right, one year from the date a new factual predicate could have been discovered, or one year from counsel's denial of a request to file a first PCR. The second-petition bar is enforced aggressively.

The evidentiary hearing — what triggers it.

Under R. 3:22-10source, an evidentiary hearing is granted only when the petition establishes a prima facie case for PCR — allegations supported by specific facts that, if true, would warrant relief. The trial court rules on the prima facie question; denial of an evidentiary hearing is reviewable de novo by the Appellate Division.

Effective petitions include:

• A sworn certification from the petitioner setting out the factual basis of each claim.
• Sworn certifications from witnesses identified in the petition (where attainable).
• Trial counsel's file or a sworn statement explaining counsel's refusal to produce it.
• Expert affidavits where the claim involves a specialized question — forensic science, mental health, biomechanics, accident reconstruction.
• A detailed legal memorandum citing prevailing professional norms (ABA standards, professional-responsibility opinions, treatises on criminal-defense practice) that trial counsel allegedly fell below.

PCR for DUI/DWI convictions — the municipal-court analog.

DUI/DWI convictions under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50source are entered in municipal court, not Superior Court, and they are not expungeable under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-28source. R. 3:22 PCR therefore does not directly apply. However, post-judgment relief is available through R. 7:10-2source motion practice in municipal court, applying similar constitutional analysis — Strickland IAC, Brady violations, illegal sentence — to municipal-court convictions. Common DUI-PCR grounds:

• Failure to challenge an unconstitutional motor-vehicle stop.
• Failure to challenge improper administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs).
• Failure to obtain Alcotest discovery — calibration records, operator certifications, downloaded data — required under State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008).
• Failure to investigate medical conditions that produce false-positive breath-test results.
• Failure to advise on the immigration consequences of conviction under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

How fees work.

PCR cases are flat-fee work in the routine matter and retainer-based in complex matters with evidentiary hearings. The fee is quoted at the consultation in writing after we review the trial record, the appellate record, and an initial assessment of the PCR grounds available. Where the case involves potential third-party recovery — for example, a legal-malpractice claim against trial counsel that runs alongside the PCR — fees and expense advances are coordinated between the two matters. PCR is not contingency-fee work; the relief sought is non-monetary.

Call counsel immediately if you believe PCR may apply.

1. Identify the five-year date.

Look at the judgment of conviction (JOC). The five-year clock under R. 3:22-12source runs from the date of entry. If the JOC is more than four years old, time is short.

2. Order the trial transcript.

The transcript is the foundation of any PCR. Order it from the county criminal records office. The cost is meaningful but unavoidable; without it, no meaningful analysis is possible.

3. Request the trial-counsel file.

Under RPC 1.16(d)source, your prior trial counsel must return the file at the end of the representation. Send the request in writing. If counsel refuses or claims the file no longer exists, document the refusal — it can support both PCR (failure to preserve client materials) and any legal-malpractice claim.

4. Write down everything you remember — for counsel only.

Names of witnesses you wanted called; statements counsel made about plea offers; advice you received about appeal; specific failures in investigation, suppression, or discovery. Date the document. Mark it "Confidential — Prepared for Counsel."

5. Contact counsel promptly.

PCR cases are time-bound and document-heavy. The earlier the file review begins, the more options generally remain on the table. Call (800) 709-1131 or use the contact form so the deadline picture, the trial transcript, and the prior-counsel-file question can be triaged together rather than in sequence.

Frequently asked questions

Consult

Request a Case Evaluation

Answer a few questions and choose how you want the firm to follow up. Your request goes straight to our intake team for prompt, personal review.

Consultation request. There is no charge to send this form or to talk through your situation.

First Name *

Last Name *

Phone *

Email *

Address

Use your mailing address. It helps intake route the request and prepare conflict review.

Street Address *

Apartment, Suite, or Unit

City *

State *

ZIP Code *

What criminal or municipal issue do you need help with? *

Criminal-defense intake is county-sensitive. Mention the county and court if you know them.

Preferred follow-up * Phone call Text me Email

I agree to receive text messages from Simon Law Group about my request. Consent is optional, and message frequency may vary. Reply STOP to opt out. See the SMS terms. I understand that submitting this form is governed by the Terms of Service and Legal Disclaimer, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not include confidential documents before the firm confirms it can discuss my matter.

Website (leave blank)

Submit Case Evaluation

Sending this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not include confidential documents here.