# CODY v. SWEENEY

> District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10655608

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 30, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10655608

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
:
JOSEPH CODY, :
: Civ. No. 20-12919 (CCC)
Petitioner, :
:
v. : OPINION
:
CINDY SWEENEY, THE ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW :
JERSEY, :
:
Respondents. :
_________________________________________ :
CECCHI, District Judge
Pro se petitioner Joseph Cody, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at East Jersey State
Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2254 (ECF No. 3) and a motion for an evidentiary hearing and to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF
No. 16). For the reasons below, the petition and motion are denied and no certificate of
appealability shall issue.
I. BACKGROUND
Cody’s conviction arises out of the 2012 beating and robbery of a gas station attendant in
Newark, New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, summarized the
underlying circumstances of this case on direct appeal:1
On April 20, 2012, Surjit Singh was working as an attendant in a service station at
the corner of Frelinghuysen and Meeker Avenues in Newark. As Singh began to
pump fuel into a truck, two men, later identified by Singh as Joseph and Victor
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), this Court affords deference to the factual determinations of
the State court. Id. (“In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made
by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting
the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”).
Cody,[2] beat and robbed him. Victor grabbed Singh from behind and took money
from his pocket, while Joseph hit Singh in the face with a metal object, fracturing
his left cheek. Singh was able to see both men as they fled.
A surveillance video shows Singh walking toward the truck before the attack at
12:21 p.m. Singh is seen walking around the front of the truck to the driver’s side,
out of camera range. Less than one minute later, two men can be seen walking
around the front of the truck. One of the men wore a hooded coat while the other
wore a shirt with a distinctive cross pattern on the back, similar to one recovered
after the robbery.
Lorraine Bellamy was at the station and witnessed the robbery, but could not
identify anyone. Tashon Brown, an off-duty firefighter, was in the station’s
convenience store at the time of the robbery. Bellamy told Brown that a man had
been robbed and the attackers fled through the park across the street. She described
one of the robbers as wearing a dark blue jacket and the other as wearing a white
shirt or sweatshirt. Bellamy also told Brown that one of the men had a “low” haircut
while the other had longer braids.
Brown told Bellamy he was “going to get them people” and drove out of the station
in the direction that Bellamy saw the men fleeing. Brown radioed a report of the
robbery and a description of the suspects he had been given to his fire department
dispatch. As Brown approached Dayton Street, he spotted two men fitting the
description of the robbers in the park who were hastily removing some of their
clothing. Brown informed dispatch as he followed the men out of the park and
observed them enter a gold Nissan Maxima.
Brown followed the Nissan southwest on Dayton to Foster Street and then north on
Frelinghuysen, while simultaneously relaying the license plate number and location
of the Nissan to his dispatch. Brown’s information was, in turn, relayed to Newark
police.
As Brown was following the Nissan, Newark Police Officer Jimmy Rios and his
partner Exmil Gonzalez received the report of the robbery and spotted the Nissan.
Rios followed the Nissan and initiated a traffic stop. Brown continued to follow the
Nissan until it was stopped by police; he then returned to the gas station.
The officers identified Arthur Armstrong as the driver of the Nissan. Joseph Cody
was sitting in the front passenger seat, while Victor Cody was in the back seat. Rios
told the occupants of the car to keep their hands visible. Armstrong and Joseph
complied, but Victor kept his hands near his waistband. After Victor failed to
comply with a second command to show his hands, Rios drew his gun and again
instructed Victor to show his hands. Victor complied and, after he and the occupants
were removed from the vehicle, Victor was patted down and a bundle of money

2 To avoid confusion, the Court refers to Cody’s brother and co-defendant, Victor Cody, as Victor.
totaling $1,319 was found in his waistband. A black hoodie and a grey shirt with a
distinctive cross design were recovered from the vehicle.
All three men were arrested and taken in separate cars back to the gas station to see
if Singh could identify them. Before Singh saw Victor and Joseph, Rios told Singh
that the men he would see may not have been involved in the crime and he was
under no pressure to identify anyone. Singh identified both defendants as the ones
who robbed and beat him. Specifically, Singh said Victor was the one who held
him and Joseph struck him in the eye with a metal object. The show-up was partially
recorded on the surveillance camera. Although there is no audio, the video contains
a time reference which indicates that the show up began at 12:36 p.m., fifteen
minutes after the robbery. Singh testified at trial that, when he identified defendants
on April 20, 2012, he was one hundred percent sure that they were the people who
robbed him.
Prior to trial, the judge conducted a Wade3 hearing to determine the admissibility
of Singh’s out-of-court identification of defendants. Sergeant David Robinson, the
first officer to respond to the gas station, testified that he had difficulty
communicating with Singh because of a language barrier, so Mandeep Kaur, a
woman who also worked at the gas station, translated for him.
Although Singh had sustained injuries to his eye and was bleeding, Robinson found
that he was very alert. After defendants were arrested, Robinson radioed to the
officers to bring them to the gas station to see if Singh could ma[k]e an
identification.
When the officers arrived, Robinson told them to bring out each defendant, one at
a time. When they were presented for identification, both defendants were
handcuffed with their hands behind their backs and were each accompanied by two
uniformed police officers.
Singh identified Joseph as the officers were still transporting him from the car.
Singh noted Joseph’s braids and said he was the one who hit him. Singh also
quickly pointed at and identified Victor when he was brought out. Robinson did not
prepare any documents or make notes about his interactions with Singh.
The judge found that the show-up identification was suggestive, but after hearing
only Robinson’s testimony, he ruled that he did not have enough evidence to
resolve the question of whether the identification was sufficiently reliable to be
admitted at trial.
The State then called Singh, who testified through an interpreter that he recognized
defendants and was very sure of his identification. Singh stated that he saw the face
of the person who grabbed him from behind when that person released him. He
described the person who grabbed him from behind as being shorter than him and
having a lighter complexion than the person in front of him. Singh said that both

3 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
individuals were clean-shaven, and the person who grabbed him was wearing a
muddy, yellow-colored shirt.
The judge then denied defendants’ motions to suppress the out-of-court
identification by Singh. He found no evasiveness by either witness and noted that
Singh’s difficulty with English may have accounted for some of the inconsistencies
in his descriptions. The judge determined that the show-up identification was
suggestive because defendants were shown to the victim in handcuffs and
accompanied by uniformed officers. Also, the victim was in a position to see both
defendants together before they were separately displayed.
Despite its suggestiveness, the judge found that the identifications were sufficiently
reliable. The judge noted that, during the robbery, Singh had the opportunity to
observe the face of both defendants as they ran away, and the subsequent
identifications took place within fifteen minutes of the incident. The judge found
that the level of confidence Singh expressed in his identifications during the hearing
was corroborated by the speed at which the show-up identifications were made.
The judge also conducted a brief pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of
the 911 call, and fire department dispatch and police recordings of the incident. The
State offered the recordings as non-testimonial business recordings and present
sense impressions. The judge admitted portions of the recordings.
The 911 recording was admitted because the statements were non-testimonial and
meant to resolve an emergency, the speaker was referring to events as they were
happening, and the “call was plainly a call for help against a bona fide physical
threat.” The judge also found that portions of the 911 recording were admissible
under the present sense impression and the excited utterance exceptions to the
hearsay rule.
The segment of the fire department dispatch recording that was admitted was
determined to be non-testimonial and fell under the present sense impression
hearsay exception.
State v. Cody, No. A-5005-13T2, 2016 WL 3369531, at *2–4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 20,
2016) (footnote omitted). Additionally,
After eleven hours of deliberations, the jury reported they were at an impasse. The
trial court, who was also the PCR court, instructed the jury to continue its
deliberations, gave the instruction approved in State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980),
and provided a written copy of the jury charge over the objection of defense
counsel. The jury also heard readbacks of Singh and Lorraine Bellamy's testimony.
State v. Cody, No. A-0754-18T2, 2020 WL 2601974, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 22,
2020).
The jury convicted Cody and Victor of second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, first-
degree robbery, fourth-degree unlawful possession of a blunt object under inappropriate
circumstances, and third-degree possession of a weapon with an unlawful purpose. Cody, 2020
WL 2601974, at *1; ECF No. 13-2 at 2–4 (judgement of conviction). Cody was sentenced to 25

years with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility, pursuant to the No Early Release
Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and 5 years of parole supervision. Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *1; ECF
No. 13-2 at 2. The judge also imposed a discretionary extended term for persistent offenders under
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1(b); ECF No. 13-2 at 2. The Appellate Division consolidated Cody and Victor’s
appeals and, in June 2016, affirmed. Cody, 2016 WL 3369531, at *13. Certification was denied in
January 2017. State v. Cody, 228 N.J. 503 (2017). Cody’s petition for post-conviction relief
(“PCR”) was denied in May 2018, Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *1; the Appellate Division affirmed
in May 2020, id.; and certification was denied in January 2021, State v. Cody, 245 N.J. 37 (2021).
Cody filed an initial habeas petition and a motion to stay in September 2020. ECF No. 1.4
In March 2021, Cody filed a second petition asserting the following grounds for relief: (1) trial

counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to move to suppress evidence obtained pursuant
to Cody’s alleged unlawful arrest (ECF No. 3 at 19–22); (2) trial counsel was ineffective during
plea negotiations for advising Cody that certain video and clothing evidence would not be used
against him (id. at 23–24); (3) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the

4 Cody did not include grounds for relief in his initial petition. He instead directed the Court to “see attached
pages,” ECF No. 1 at 6–11, but failed to attach additional pages to his petition. Likewise, he indicated in
his motion for a stay that he would “rely on the attached certification in support of [his] motion,” ECF No.
2 at 1, but did not attach a certification to his motion. It appears from a review of his initial petition that
Cody was seeking a stay while awaiting a ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court on his appeal of the
denial of his PCR petition. ECF No. 1 at 15. Nonetheless, the Court did not direct Cody to specify the
grounds for relief in his petition or provide the Court with support for his motion because Cody thereafter
filed a second petition articulating his grounds for relief, ECF No. 3, and advising the Court that his petition
for certification was denied on January 22, 2021, ECF No. 3 at 15.
issue of the trial court’s “intrusion into the jury’s deliberative process” (id. at 25); (4) the trial court
erred by admitting the show-up identification (id. at 26–28); and (5) the cumulative effect of trial
and appellate counsels’ alleged errors amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel (id. at 29–31).
The State answered in August 2021. ECF Nos. 12, 13. Cody did not file a reply; however, in

October 2022, he moved for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of pro bono counsel. ECF
No. 16.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The district court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
habeas petitioner must establish entitlement to relief for each claim in his petition based upon the
record that was before the state court. See Eley v. Erickson, 712 F.3d 837, 846 (3d Cir. 2013);
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 40–41 (2012). District courts must defer to the determinations
of state trial and appellate courts. See Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010).

If the state courts have adjudicated a claim on the merits, the district court shall not grant
a writ of habeas corpus unless that adjudication:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). Federal law is “clearly established” for these purposes if it is clearly
expressed in “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of the United States Supreme Court. Woods v.
Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015). “When reviewing state criminal convictions on collateral
review, federal judges are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions
only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong.” Id. If a petitioner challenges
an allegedly erroneous state court factual determination, that determination “shall be presumed to
be correct [and the] applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by
clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

Under these standards, the relevant state court decision for federal habeas corpus review is
the last reasoned state court decision. See Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 289–90 (3d Cir. 2008).
These standards apply “even where there has been a summary denial” by the state court. Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 187 (2011).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Admission of Show-Up Identification (Ground Four)
Cody argues that the trial court erred by admitting the show-up identification. ECF No. 3
at 26–28. The Appellate Division rejected this claim:
Joseph argues that the trial judge erred by admitting the show-up identifications at
trial because the police failed to make a written record of the identification
procedure as required by State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (2006). He also argues that
the identifications should not have been admitted because they were unreliable due
to the victim’s brief opportunity to view the assailants, the impairment of the
victim’s perception due to stress and injury, and the inconsistencies in the
description of the assailants that the victim later provided. Victor also argues that
the show-up identifications were inherently suggestive and unreliable.
. . .
The trial judge held that the two-prong test articulated by the United States Supreme
Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), and adopted by our Supreme
Court in State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223, 232–33 (1988), applied . . . .
Under the Manson/Madison framework, the judge must first decide whether the
procedure in question was impermissibly suggestive. Madison, supra, 109 N.J. at
232. If so, the judge must then decide whether the objectionable procedure resulted
in a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Ibid. (quoting
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)). In carrying out this analysis,
the judge must focus on the reliability of the identification. Ibid. If the judge finds
that the identification is reliable despite the impermissibly suggestive nature of the
procedure, the identification may be admitted into evidence. Ibid.
In assessing reliability, the judge must consider five factors: “the opportunity of
the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of
attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of
certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and
the confrontation.” State v. Herrera, 187 N.J. 493, 507 (2006) (quoting Manson,
supra, 432 U.S. at 114).
Singh had an opportunity to view his assailants in bright sunlight and at close
range, and the certainty of his identifications were apparent on the surveillance
video. Singh was also not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and only fifteen
minutes elapsed between the time of the robbery and the identifications. The other
evidence at trial bolstering reliability included Brown’s observation of both
defendants in the park shedding clothing minutes after he was given a description
of the robbers by Bellamy; his following of defendants until their apprehension;
and the large amount of cash found hidden in Victor Cody’s waistband.
However, the most compelling evidence supporting reliability is the surveillance
video showing Singh walking around the front of the truck followed less than one
minute later by two men who proceeded to the same location. Given the timing,
the jury could have reasonably concluded that the two men following Singh were
indeed the robbers, and the very distinctive cross design appearing on the back of
the shirt worn by the second man in the video was identical to the design on the
shirt found in the Nissan minutes after the robbery. We are satisfied that the
show-up identifications, while suggestive, were sufficiently reliable to be
presented to the jury.
Cody, 2016 WL 3369531, at *5–7.
As an initial matter, Cody’s argument that the identification procedure did not comply with
Delgado because the police did not make a written record of the identification procedure raises an
issue of state law and, therefore, does not provide a basis for habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
As to Cody’s argument that the identification was unreliable, the Court finds that the
Appellate Division applied clearly established federal law to evaluate the admissibility of the
identification and reasonably found that the identification, while suggestive, was sufficiently
reliable for presentation to the jury. Cody, 2016 WL 3369531, at *7. Applying the Manson v.
Brathwaite factors, the Appellate Division noted that Singh saw his assailants in bright sunlight
and at close range; he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs; the certainty of his
identifications [was] apparent on the surveillance video; and only 15 minutes had elapsed between
the robbery and the identifications. Cody, 2016 WL 3369531, at *5–7. The court also noted several
other facts supporting reliability of the identification, including the “compelling” evidence of the

surveillance video and the distinctive design on the t-shirt worn by one of the men in the video,
which “was identical to the design on the shirt found in the Nissan minutes after the robbery.” Id.
Further, in denying Cody and Victor’s motion to suppress the out-of-court identifications, the trial
judge noted that Singh testified that “he had the direct opportunity to . . . observe the face of the
individual who allegedly struck him in the face, . . . the taller individual . . . being Joseph Cody.”
ECF No. 13-13 at 82 (also noting Singh’s testimony that “he had the opportunity to see the faces
of both of the defendants when they ran from him.”).
On this record, there was sufficient, credible evidence to conclude that the identification
was reliable and properly admitted. Cody has not shown that the Appellate Division’s rejection of
this claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor

has he shown that it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented. See, e.g., Blount v. Davis, No. CV 19-409, 2022 WL 807430, at *5 (D.N.J.
Mar. 17, 2022) (finding no error in Appellate Division’s determination that identification was
sufficiently reliable where “the show-up occurred within two hours of the incident, the victim
immediately identified defendant without any uncertainty, the distance discrepancy between the
victim and defendant at the show-up was minor, and nothing obstructed defendant’s view of
defendant.”); Washington v. Warren, No. 12-1184 MAS, 2015 WL 502156, at *10 (D.N.J. Feb. 5,
2015) (petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on identification claim where “the area where the
robbery occurred was well-lit; [petitioner] had the opportunity for two or three minutes to observe
the face of defendant who was, at most, only three feet away from him during the robbery, which
demonstrates a level of certainty; and it was an extremely short period of time between the robbery
to the time of the identification”). Habeas relief on Ground Four will be denied.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Grounds One, Two, Three, and Five)

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the “right . . . to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const. amend. VI; see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686
(1984). A claim of ineffective assistance has two necessary components. Id. at 687. First, the
defendant must “show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness,” id. at 687–88, meaning he “must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that
are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 690. Second, a
petitioner must establish prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that the result of trial would have
been different absent the deficient act or omission. Id. at 687.
Criminal defendants are also entitled to the effective assistance of counsel during plea
negotiations. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970). The Strickland standard also

applies in evaluating claims of ineffective assistance during the plea process. See Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985). Trial counsel can be ineffective if his or her erroneous advice results in
the rejection of a plea offer, provided the defendant would have otherwise accepted the plea
bargain. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162–63 (2012). To establish prejudice from ineffective
assistance during the plea bargain process, a petitioner must demonstrate that, but for counsel’s
errors, the outcome of the process would have been different. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. If the
defendant has been convicted after trial and alleges ineffective assistance in connection with non-
acceptance of a plea, the defendant must establish that “but for the ineffective advice of counsel
there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court (i.e.,
that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it
in light of intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the
conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under
the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” Lafler, 566 U.S. at 164. Additionally, “[i]f

it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . .
that course should be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
Finally, on habeas review, it is not enough that a federal judge would have found counsel
ineffective. The judge must find that the state court’s resolution of the issue was unreasonable, a
higher standard. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011).
1. Ground One
Cody argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he did not move to suppress the
evidence obtained from the motor vehicle stop. ECF No. 3, Attached Pages, at 3–6. He asserts that
the state court’s finding that he was subjected to an investigatory stop rather than an arrest was an
unreasonable determination of the facts because the courts failed to consider “that weapons were

drawn and [Cody] was forcefully taken into custody.” Id. at 6. On this basis, he contends that “the
evidence admitted at trial [was] fruits of an unlawful arrest” and counsel was ineffective for not
presenting this argument to the trial court. Id.
The PCR court rejected this claim. ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 11–16. In affirming, the Appellate
Division summarized the PCR court’s findings as follows:
Ultimately, the PCR court concluded defendant failed to demonstrate that either his
trial counsel or appellate counsel was ineffective. More specifically, the PCR court
found the restraint on defendant’s liberty “arose to an investigative detention, rather
than a custodial arrest,” pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The PCR
court noted that “[s]ome restraint of a suspect’s liberty is inherent in any ‘show-
up’” and the detention was no longer than reasonably necessary to facilitate the
identification process, lasting fifteen minutes. Therefore, the PCR court determined
that defendant failed to establish his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move
to suppress the show-up identifications under Rule 3:5A.
The PCR court found defendant was not arrested until Singh identified him and
Victor Cody as the perpetrators. Singh stated defendant “struck him in the eye with
some type of object.” At that point, the PCR court determined the officer had
probable cause to arrest defendant. A passerby, Bellamy, observed the robbery and
physically described defendant and his brother as they ran from the scene of the
crime. Surveillance video showed two men—one “wore a hooded coat while the
other wore a shirt with a distinctive cross pattern on the back . . . .” Defendant’s
clothing matched the description given by Bellamy to the police. The PCR court
found the officers had “sufficient objective justification to remove” defendant from
the Nissan and his “clothing remained visible on the front passenger floorboard” in
plain view.
Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *2–3.
The Appellate Division affirmed “substantially for the reasons expressed by the PCR court
in its well-reasoned written opinion,” and added the following:
Defendant’s contention that the PCR court erred in rejecting the claim that his trial
counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress evidence lacks merit.
Here, Brown was in the gas station’s convenience store when the robbery took
place. He followed defendant and co-defendant Victor Cody and saw them enter
the Nissan. Brown called the police and provided them with the license plate
number and the location of the vehicle.
The police stopped the Nissan and ordered defendant and his brother out of the car.
Defendants were brought back to the gas station for a show-up identification. Singh
identified defendant and his brother as the perpetrators of the robbery and assault
fifteen minutes after the acts were committed. According to Singh, co-defendant
Victor Cody held him while defendant struck him in the face with a metal object.
We are convinced the PCR court properly rejected defendant’s argument and
denied the petition. The record supports the PCR court’s finding that defendant and
his brother were not arrested until after Singh identified them as the perpetrators.
They were stopped and detained on reasonable suspicion pending the identification
procedure. The PCR court aptly found that the detention was no longer than
reasonably necessary to facilitate the identification process.
Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *3–4.
As to the physical evidence, the PCR court found that the cash was seized incident to
Victor Cody’s lawful arrest:
[P]etitioner concedes that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to pat [Victor]
down to [e]nsure officer safety at the scene of the motor vehicle stop. At trial,
Officer Rios testified that he discovered a bundle of cash in Victor Cody’s
waistband during a Terry frisk for weapons. The cash was not confiscated at that
time and “at that point in time the money was allowed to remain on Mr. Victor
Cody.” It was not until Victor Cody was returned to the gas station and identified
by the victim that the officer took possession of the money. Petitioners were not
arrested until after they were positively identified by the victim within fifteen
minutes of the robbery. At that time, the officer had probable cause to arrest and
perform a search incident thereto. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392
(1914). The cash was properly seized incident to that lawful arrest.
ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 18 (citation omitted).
The court further found that the clothing was seized pursuant to the plain view
doctrine:
Petitioners further claim that trial counsel should have moved to suppress the
clothing—a black hooded sweatshirt and a graphic t-shirt bearing a cross design on
the back—which were located within the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Petitioners argue that a search occurred, and that this should be suppressed because
no search warrant was obtained and no exigency was established. However, it is
well established that a simple observation into the interior of an automobile by a
police officer located outside of the automobile is not a search. Since the clothing
was observable from outside of the motor vehicle, petitioners had no reasonable
expectation of privacy concerning that clothing and no “search” occurred.
. . .
When the officers stopped the Maxima, they reasonably suspected that its
occupants committed an armed robbery. Upon stopping this car, the officers
instructed the passengers to keep their hands visible. Victor Cody did not comply
with the officer’s repeated order to show his hands until the officer produced his
service weapon. Accordingly, the officers had sufficient objective justification to
remove the driver (Mr. Armstrong) and both passengers (Cody brothers) from the
vehicle. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983) (vehicle frisk);
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (driver exit). When these occupants
were lawfully removed from the vehicle, the clothing remained visible on front
passenger floorboard.
Officer Rios also testified that, at the time the three suspects were removed from
the vehicle, he took pictures of the interior of the Maxima. The pictures depicted a
black hooded sweatshirt and a light colored shirt at the front passenger side
floorboard. This clothing was in the plain view of the officer and was similar to the
initial description of the robbers given by the crime scene witness and corroborated
by the surveillance video.
. . . [P]etitioner Joseph Cody maintains that the distinctive cross markings on the
shirt were not clearly observable as it was positioned on the floorboard.
Significantly, firefighter Brown observed the suspects hastily removing clothing as
they fled the crime scene and entered the Maxima. Hence, any discarded clothing
within the Maxima had evidential value. The significance or evidential value of this
clothing was so “immediately apparent” to Officer Rios that he took a photograph
of this evidence, once the petitioners alighted from the Maxima. . . .
. . .
Assuming arguendo that the clothing was not lawfully seized; the vehicle would
have been subject to inventory search after being impounded, due to arrests of all
vehicle occupants. Thus, since several independent grounds exist to deny a motion
to suppress the clothing, petitioners have failed to establish deficient performance
as required under Strickland’s first prong.
Application of Strickland’s second prong also compels denial of [this claim]. Apart
from the physical evidence seized, the victim’s unequivocal identification of the
petitioners and the surveillance video depicting the criminal incident provided
ample independent evidence to support the convictions.
ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 18–20 (footnote, brackets, ellipses, quotations, and citations omitted;
emphasis in original).
With these state decisions in mind, the Court turns back to Cody’s ineffective assistance
claim based on counsel’s alleged failure to move to suppress evidence. As a general matter, the
Fourth Amendment guarantees:
the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . and that no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Not all seizures, however, are arrests. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
(1968), and subsequent cases, “an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a
brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal
activity is afoot.” United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 353 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Illinois v.
Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). Reasonable, articulable suspicion is a “less demanding
standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the
evidence.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123. Only a “minimal level of objective justification” is necessary
for a Terry stop. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); see also United States v. Silveus,
542 F.3d 993, 999–1000 (3d Cir. 2008) (reasonable suspicion poses a lower hurdle because the
level of intrusion on an individual’s liberty is less).

“The Supreme Court has not established a bright-line rule to distinguish a warrantless arrest
from an investigatory stop.” Grant v. City of Philadelphia, No. 20-735, 2022 WL 11615669, at *4
(E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2022). Ultimately, the “reasonableness of the intrusion is the touchstone of our
analysis.” United States v. Torres, 961 F.3d 618, 622 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Baker v. Monroe
Township, 50 F.3d 1186, 1192 (3d Cir. 1995)). “The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to
consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably
needed to effectuate those purposes.” Torres, 961 F.3d at 622 (citing United States v. Sharpe, 470
U.S. 675, 685 (1985)); see also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (“A brief stop of a
suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily
while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer

at the time.”); Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 (“[I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must
be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from
those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”).
When “an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he
is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous,” a Terry stop may include “a
patdown search to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon,” but “must be strictly
limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508
U.S. 366, 373 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If during the frisk for
weapons, the officer feels an object whose “contour or mass makes its identity [as contraband]
immediately apparent,” the officer may seize it. Id. at 375–76.
Further, “[a]n officer with reasonable suspicion that the occupants of a vehicle are armed
and dangerous does not act unreasonably by drawing his weapon, ordering the occupants out of

the vehicle, and handcuffing them until the scene is secured.” United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d
442, 453 (3d Cir. 2010). Indeed, “the vast majority of courts have held that police actions in
blocking a suspect’s vehicle and approaching with weapons ready, and even drawn, does not
constitute an arrest per se.” Johnson, 592 F.3d at 453 (citing United States v. Edwards, 53 F.3d
616, 619 (3d Cir. 1995) (collecting cases)). And “placing a suspect in handcuffs while securing a
location or conducting an investigation” does not “automatically transform an otherwise-valid
Terry stop into a full-blown arrest.” Johnson, 592 F.3d at 453; see also Baker, 50 F.3d at 1193
(“There is no per se rule that pointing guns at people, or handcuffing them, constitutes an arrest.”).
Also, “objects falling within the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” Harris v. United

States, 390 U.S. 234, 236 (1968). This plain view doctrine allows for the warrantless seizure of an
item when three requirements are met: (1) the officer must not have violated the Fourth
Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed; (2) the
incriminating character of the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (3) the officer must
have a lawful right of access to the object itself. United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 241 (3d
Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550, 559–60 (3d Cir. 1994)); see also Coolidge
v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466–68 (1971). When police observe an item left in plain view,
“‘information obtained . . . may be the basis for probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal
activity. In turn, these levels of suspicion may, in some cases . . . justify police conduct affording
them access to a particular item.’” Stabile, 633 F.3d at 241 n.17 (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S.
730, 738 n.4 (1983)).
Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, “evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful
search or seizure must be suppressed at trial.” United States v. Coggins, 986 F.2d 651 (3d Cir.

1993). Further, when a petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate
a Fourth Amendment claim, the petitioner must “prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is
meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different
absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v. Morrison,
477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986); see also Wharton v. Vaughn, 722 F. App’x 268, 273–74 (3d Cir. 2018).
Here, the state courts reasonably found that (a) Cody was subjected to an investigative stop
and detention pending an identification procedure rather than a custodial arrest, and (b) counsel
was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence. The state court identified specific
and articulable facts that led the police officers to reasonably believe that Cody and his brother
had been engaged in criminal activity at the time the officers came upon the vehicle. ECF 13-6,

Op. at 12 (The PCR court noted that “as petitioners properly concede, the officers had the requisite
reasonable suspicion to stop the motor vehicle and detain its occupants. This concession is amply
supported by the trial record which abounds with objective facts supporting the officers’
reasonable suspicion that, at the time of the motor vehicle stop, the occupants were fleeing in that
vehicle from the scene of a robbery.”); id. at 16 (“Lorraine Bellamy witnessed the robbery . . . .
Ms. Bellamy reported seeing these individuals to firefighter Brown, describing their clothing[,] . .
. their physical descriptions[,] . . . and their route of flight . . . . Firefighter Brown, in turn, then
observed individuals matching the same description hastily removing some clothing and then
entering the Gold Nissan. He provided that information [to] his fire department dispatch unit,
which, in turn [] provided it to the responding officers who relied upon it to subsequently stop the
vehicle.”); see also Clifton-Short v. Johnson, No. 17-6193, 2019 WL 4635799, at *8 (D.N.J. Sept.
24, 2019) (“The officer . . . received physical descriptions of the subjects from his commanding
officer. Thus, when the officer recognized two men in the vicinity of the Dunkin Donuts who

matched the description of the two suspects, one of whom was wearing the same distinctive jacket
with orange lining that was pictured in the video, he had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop
the two men.”) (citation omitted).
The state court also identified facts supporting its finding that the removal of the occupants
from the vehicle, drawing of weapons, pat down, and detention pending identification were within
the bounds of Terry. ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 18–19 (“petitioner concedes that the police officer had
reasonable suspicion to pat him down to insure officer safety at the scene of the motor vehicle
stop”; Victor “did not comply with the Officer’s repeated order to show his hands until the officer
produced his service weapon” and, “[a]ccordingly the officers had sufficient objective justification
to remove the driver . . . and both passengers”); Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *3–4 (the detention

pending identification was fifteen minutes after the crime was committed—“no longer than
reasonably necessary to facilitate the identification process”); see also United States v. Sharpe,
470 U.S. 675, 687–88 (1985) (20-minute detention not unreasonable while officer pursued
investigation “in a diligent and reasonable manner” and did not delay unnecessarily); United States
v. Scott, 816 F. App’x 732 (3d Cir. 2020) (investigative stop not elevated to de facto arrest where
“officers performed a pat down of Defendants and placed them in police vehicles long enough to
bring the manager to the scene to determine if they were the robbers,” “the entire process took
nineteen minutes, and the record does not reflect any unnecessary delays”); United States v.
Morrison, No. 19-44, 2022 WL 130776, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2022) (“Defendant makes much
of the fact that Officer Gillette did not ‘know’ that defendant had committed a theft and he had not
witnessed a single act of criminal conduct by defendant. But this position misses the forest for the
trees. It is the totality of the circumstances that supplies the viewpoint from which the propriety of
a stop is to be evaluated.”); United States v. Pennycooke, 566 F. Supp. 3d 304, 311 (E.D. Pa. 2021)

(“The officers’ actions were necessary to protect their personal safety and therefore did not turn
the stop into an arrest. To find otherwise would be unreasonable.”) (footnotes omitted).
The state court further specified facts supporting its finding that the clothing was in plain
view and the cash was not seized until after the arrest. ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 18–19 (“Officer Rios
. . . discovered a bundle of cash . . . during a Terry frisk for weapons”; the cash was not seized
until petitioners were arrested; “[w]hen the[] occupants were lawfully removed from the vehicle,
the clothing remained visible on [the] front passenger floorboard” and “was in plain view of the
officer and was similar to the initial description of the robbers given by the crime scene witness”).
As the record supports the state courts’ findings that (a) Cody was stopped and detained on
reasonable suspicion pending the identification procedure; (b) Cody was not arrested until after

Singh identified him as a perpetrator; (c) there was justification to remove the occupants from the
vehicle; (d) the clothing was in plain view, (e) Cody’s detention lasted no longer than needed to
complete the show-up, and (f) the cash was not removed from Victor’s person until after the arrest,
a motion to suppress the evidence obtained at the time of the motor vehicle stop would have been
meritless. As counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless motion, the state
courts’ rejection of this claim, see ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 18, was not contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of facts
in light of the evidence presented. See Johnson v. Tennis, 549 F.3d 296, 301 (3d Cir. 2008)
(“Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to bring meritless motions.”); United States v.
Sanders, 165 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir. 1999) (“There can be no Sixth Amendment deprivation of
effective counsel based on an attorney’s failure to raise a meritless argument.”); Parson v. Att’y
Gen. of N.J., No. 19-10564, 2021 WL 4593317, at *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2021) (“As the state courts
found that the motion in question would not have resulted in the suppression of the evidence in

this case, and as that conclusion is well supported by applicable federal law, it is clear that the
suppression motion Petitioner contends should have been filed was meritless, and the failure to
file it cannot serve as a basis for finding counsel ineffective.”); United States v. Zareck, No. 09-
168, 2021 WL 4391393, at *64 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2021) (“[I]f Zareck’s counsel filed a motion
to suppress the ammunition because the police officers unlawfully seized it, the court would have
concluded that the ammunition was lawfully seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine and denied
the suppression motion on that basis. Zareck, therefore, did not show that his counsel’s
performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance.”). Habeas relief
on Ground One will be denied.
2. Ground Two

Cody argues that trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations for advising him
that the gas station surveillance video and clothing evidence would not be used against him. ECF
No. 3 at 23–24. Cody contends that based on this advice, he rejected a 10-year plea deal and elected
to go to trial. Id. at 23. However, the record does not support his assertion that he could have
pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal, but instead elected to go to trial. Rather, it appears that the
State conditioned its plea offer on both Cody and his brother Victor pleading guilty, but Victor
declined to do so, thereby eliminating the opportunity for Cody to plead guilty pursuant to an
agreement with the State. Indeed, the record reveals that during sentencing, in support of his
argument in opposition to the State’s application for an extended term, counsel advised the trial
judge that Cody had been unable to plead guilty pursuant to a plea deal because any offer was
contingent on all defendants pleading guilty and Victor did not reach an agreement to do so.
Counsel explained:
There was a plea bargain offer. . . . [I]t was my belief that this case was going to
work out. . . . And it did not work out because Mr. Victor Cody did not want to
work his case out for the numbers that were on the table . . . .
. . .
[W]hat I’m willing to say is that there was a plea bargaining process that . . . Joseph
Cody was very interested in engaging in. I don’t have the very first offer that [the
prosecutor] rendered with me today, but that’s what my recollection is, it was either
10 to 12. But I can tell you that I was hopeful that there was going to be plea
negotiations. Mr. Cody was hopeful there were going to be plea negotiations. . . .
And from there, it kinda deteriorated. . . . [P]lea negotiations broke down. And I
submit it was not because Mr. Joseph Cody did not want to resolve this case. It is
my belief that . . . if . . . either the contingency was broken; or, if Mr. Cody was
arrested by himself, this case would not have been tried and he would have accepted
the plea bargain offered to him by the state.
. . .
[U]nfortunately, [he] found himself in a unique situation where he was not allowed
to . . . plea in this case.
ECF No. 13-23 at 50-52 (sentencing transcript).
Additionally, in his brief on direct appeal, Cody advised the Appellate Division that he had
been unable to plead guilty pursuant to a plea deal:
Defense counsel said from “the very beginning, shortly after he was arrested,”
Joseph Cody wanted to accept a plea but could not do so because the State’s plea
offer was contingent on his codefendant Victor Cody also accepting his plea offer.
He said Joseph Cody wanted “to admit his responsibility and accept the
punishment,” but he was “not allowed to . . . plea . . . .” Defense counsel explained
that plea negotiations broke down “not because Mr. Joseph Cody did not want to
resolve this case.” . . .
The trial judge accepted counsel’s statement that Joseph Cody “was willing to . . .
admit responsibility . . . through a guilty plea” . . . . Even though Joseph Cody was
unlike his codefendant, who was never willing to plea, the trial judge said Joseph
Cody “does not stand in substantially different . . . shoes than Victor Cody in that
he has never acknowledged his responsibility for this crime.”
ECF No. 13-3 at 62–63 (citations omitted).
On direct appeal, the Appellate Division noted that “Joseph’s counsel indicated that, during
plea negotiations, Joseph was willing to resolve the matter but Victor was not, and that the State
apparently conditioned any plea offer on acceptance by both defendants.” Cody, 2016 WL
3369531, at *13 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 20, 2016). Further, on appeal of the denial of
Victor’s PCR petition, the Appellate Division noted that Victor rejected the State’s plea offer. State
v. Cody, No. A-0756-18T2, 2020 WL 2601977, at *5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 22, 2020).
The Appellate Division rejected Cody’s claim on collateral review.5 See Cody, 2020 WL

2601974, at *2, 5; see also Harrington v. Richter, 62 U.S. 86, 99 (2011) (“When a federal claim
has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that
the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law
procedural principles to the contrary.”).
The Appellate Division’s rejection of this claim was reasonable given that the proposed
plea deal to Cody was part of a “package deal.” As an initial matter, the Third Circuit has
“explained that there is a ‘package deal plea bargain[] [when] the government accepts a
defendant’s guilty plea on the condition that his co-defendants also plead guilty.’” United States
v. Hall, 515 F.3d 186, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Hodge, 412 F.3d 479, 489
(2005) (brackets added in Hall)). “There is no question that package deal plea bargains are

5 The PCR court had rejected Victor’s identical claim on the basis that Victor’s pretrial memorandum
executed on the plea cutoff date “memorializes that the only outstanding pretrial motion to be heard was
the Wade hearing,” and “[t]he State was under no obligation to provide a plea offer after that plea cutoff
date”; “[t]hus, the status of any pretrial motions was clearly communicated to [Victor] before he rejected
the plea offer.” ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 22. The court also noted that “even if Victor Cody was mistaken as
to whether he could continue to litigate suppression of the physical evidence seized, those motions lacked
merit.” Id.
constitutional,” a “nearly axiomatic [conclusion] given the nature of our criminal justice system,
of which plea bargains are an essential part.” Hodge, 412 F.3d at 490 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, Cody offers nothing more than his self-serving statement that counsel advised him

that the gas station surveillance video and clothing evidence would not be used against him, which,
he claims, caused him to reject a plea offer. ECF No. 3, Attached Pages, at 7–8. However, counsel
represented to the trial court that Cody never had the opportunity to plead guilty pursuant to a deal
with the State in light of Victor’s unwillingness to plead, and Cody did not contest that
representation. ECF No. 13-23; see also, e.g., Nein v. Tricam Indus., Inc., No. CV 16-3752, 2019
WL 4386400, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s counsel is a responsible officer of this
Court and as such we will take his statements as truthful.”); Crego v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No.
14-1528, 2018 WL 11207956, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018) (relying, inter alia, on the
representations of defense counsel—“an officer of the court”—in rejecting ineffective assistance
claim); Virag v. Diaz, No. CV 13-4872, 2015 WL 5092686, at *11–13 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015)

(“Petitioner has provided nothing but his self-serving statements to support his claims that he told
counsel . . . that he wanted to accept the . . . plea offer. More importantly, his claim is belied by
the record. At the . . . pretrial hearing, the prosecutor stated that it had been made clear to the
People that Petitioner had ‘no real interest’ in accepting a plea agreement in the 12–year range.
Both Petitioner and counsel were at this hearing, and neither contested the prosecutor’s
characterization of the offer or Petitioner's lack of interest.”) (citations omitted), report and
recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5096398 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015). Moreover, Cody restated
and relied on those representations in support of his arguments to the Appellate Division on direct
review. ECF No. 13-3 at 62–63. Similarly, the State confirmed in its answer to the habeas petition
that Cody could not have pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement and therefore suffered no
prejudice, see ECF No. 12 at 25 (“Petitioner cannot establish prejudice because the State was
entitled to withdraw the plea offer conditioned on both defendants pleading when petitioner’s co-
defendant refused to plead guilty.”), 26 (“The State’s plea offer was conditioned on both

petitioners pleading guilty. Victor was unwilling to enter a plea.”), yet Cody failed to reply or deny
that the plea offer was contingent on all defendants pleading guilty.
For these reasons, Cody has not established that but for counsel’s alleged deficient
performance, the outcome would have been different. Thus, he has failed to demonstrate prejudice.
See, e.g., United States v. Moten, No. 10-620, 2022 WL 1982764, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2022)
(“Petitioner acknowledges that the plea discussions were global in nature and required all
defendants to accept the offer. This acknowledgement proves that the prosecution did not offer a
standalone offer to Petitioner, but instead, the offer was contingent on all defendants accepting it.
Thus, Counsel could not have been ineffective if the Government did not make [a] plea offer.”);
United States v. Hellinger, No. 14-1202, 2015 WL 539537, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2015)

(“Petitioner has failed to establish that he could have convinced his other co-Defendants to accept
the Linked Offer. . . . Petitioner has not met his burden of establishing prejudice. Accordingly, his
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.”); Mickens v. United States, 257 F. App’x 461,
463 (petitioner failed to show prejudice where two of his co-defendants refused to accept the global
plea offer and the offer expired); Pearson v. Westbrooks, No. 16-03018, 2019 WL 295090, at *11
(M.D. Tenn. Jan. 22, 2019) (“The state court reasonably determined that any plea offer to Petitioner
was contingent on Elvin pleading guilty, and Elvin did not agree to do so. Thus, it found that any
plea discussion did not result in a ‘formal offer’ to Petitioner . . . .”); Rise v. Glebe, No. 14-1218,
2015 WL 4877836, at *12 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2015) (“Without a plea offer on the table, the
Court is unable to engage in Lafler’s prejudice inquiry, namely whether the plea offer would have
been presented to the court, accepted by the trial judge, and more favorable than petitioner’s
ultimate sentence.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 4877848 (W.D. Wash. Aug.
14, 2015).

On this record, the Appellate Division’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable
determination of facts in light of the evidence presented. Habeas relief on Ground Two will be
denied.
3. Ground Three
Cody argues that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the issue
of the trial court’s “intrusion into the jury’s deliberative process.” ECF No. 3 at 25. As explained
below, the state courts reasonably rejected this claim.
During deliberations, the jury sent out a note reading: “If the jury has exhaustively
reviewed the evidence multiple times and still finds itself in an irreconcilable impasse, how can

we possibly proceed?” ECF No. 13-22 at 3. Over counsel’s lengthy objection, ECF No. 13-22 at
5–11, the trial court provided the jury with a copy of the instructions and charged as follows:
It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to
reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment.
Each of you must decide the case for yourself but do so only after an impartial
consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. You are to consider the
evidence and apply it to the law as I instructed you before you began your
deliberations. For your convenience, I’m providing you with a copy of these written
instructions marked C-13A.
Now, these written instructions are not being given to you for the purpose of
changing your individual opinions of the evidence. It is your own recollection
of the facts that controls. Feel free to use these written instructions or not use
them as you continue your deliberations.
In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views
and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your
honest conviction as to the weight of the evidence solely because of the opinion of
your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You are not
partisans. You are judges—you are judges of the facts.
With those instructions and with a copy of the written charge, you are to continue
your deliberations. The Court will receive either a verdict sheet or further
communication from the jury as you deem it appropriate.
ECF No. 13-22 at 14–16 (emphasis added). Counsel’s objection resulted in the addition of the
bolded language, which he proposed. Id. at 14.
The PCR court rejected Cody’s argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise
the issue of the trial court’s intrusion into the jury’s deliberative process, finding (a) trial and
appellate counsel raised the issue at trial and on direct appeal, and (b) “trial counsel vigorously
challenged the trial court’s instruction to the jury in response to the jury note”:
[P]etitioners allege trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the jury
charge. However, trial counsel challenged the Court on the issue of the jury
deliberations, the jury instructions, and the standard “modified” Allen[6] charge.
Trial counsel raised the exact issues petitioner now raises as the ground for an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This court’s use of a modified Allen charge
is a decision made in the exercise of its sound discretion. Petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any deficiency in trial counsel’s performance or that there was any
coercion due to the court’s modified instruction.
ECF No. 13-6, Op. at 23 (citations omitted).
The Appellate Division affirmed:
In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant argues that his trial counsel was
ineffective for not objecting to the modified Allen charge, approved by our Supreme
Court in Czachor. When the jurors reported they had reached an impasse, the trial
court instructed them to continue their deliberations and gave them a Czachor
instruction. Defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel
failed to object and request the court inquire whether further deliberations would
result in a verdict. And, defendant asserts that the trial court should not have
provided the jury with written instructions. He also contends appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise these issues on appeal. Defendant’s arguments are
without merit.

6 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
In Czachor, our Court disapproved the charge for a deadlocked jury that had been
sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States in Allen. The Court held in
Czachor that the conventional Allen charge was unduly coercive and did not
“permit jurors to deliberate objectively, freely, and with an untrammeled mind.”
Before a trial court gives a jury a Czachor charge, it should inquire whether further
deliberations would be fruitful, however, that is not always required.
In this case, the trial court provided the jury with the charge approved by the Court
in Czachor, and set forth in our Model Jury Charges (Criminal). The record shows
that the trial court did not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict. Defense counsel
objected to the instruction but, at that point, the jury had only been deliberating
eleven hours. The jury continued its deliberations and returned a verdict. Defendant
has not shown that the result here would have been different if the judge had
questioned the members of the jury before giving the Czachor charge. Appellate
counsel also was not ineffective in failing to raise this issue on appeal. We are
satisfied that the PCR court’s determination was not erroneous.
Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *5–6 (citations omitted). The Appellate Division also noted that Cody
raised the issue on direct appeal in his pro se supplemental brief, Victor raised the issue in his
appeal, the appeals were consolidated, and the court “rejected Victor Cody’s contention that the
trial judge erred by providing the Czachor instruction.” Id. at *6; see also Cody, 2016 WL
3369531, at *2.
Given that (a) trial counsel objected to the trial court’s response to the jury note and the
court modified its charge in response, and (b) both Victor’s counsel and Cody raised the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim on appeal, the state courts reasonably rejected this claim, reasoning
that counsel was not ineffective because the claim was, in fact, raised and adjudicated at trial and
on appeal and Cody therefore could not establish that but for counsel’s alleged deficiency the
outcome at trial would have been different.
The state courts also reasonably rejected Cody’s arguments that the trial court coerced the
jury into reaching a verdict and improperly provided the jury with written instructions. See, e.g.,
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 936 (3d Cir.1974) (“Absent peculiar
evidence indicative of coercion, it is proper for a judge to instruct a deadlocked jury to continue
deliberations and attempt to arrive at a verdict.”), abrogated on other grounds by Corley v. United
States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009); Thomas v. Davis, No. 19-21859, 2023 WL 2596891, at *11 (D.N.J.
Mar. 22, 2023) (“To the extent Petitioner wishes to rechallenge the trial judge’s instructions based
on State v. Czachor, 413 A.2d at 598 (N.J. 1980), or other state law cases, such errors would be

errors of state law, and federal habeas ‘relief does not lie for errors of state law.’”) (quoting Estelle,
502 U.S. at 67); Stansbury v. Dist. Att’y of Cnty. of Philadelphia, No. 18-02022, 2020 WL
13566214, at *18 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2020) (“Giving written jury instructions to the jury does not
offend some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental.”) (quotations and citations omitted), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 18-2022, 2021 WL 9563386 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2021); Kinney v. Nogan, No. 17-5608, 2020
WL 1466361, at *7 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2020) (“Petitioner has not pointed to any Supreme Court
precedent that proscribes providing jury instructions in written form . . . .”); Shaw v. Bell, No. 206-
14506, 2009 WL 1508170, at *7 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2009) (“a state trial court’s decision as to
whether to send written instructions into the jury room is not cognizable on habeas review”); U.S.

ex rel. Hancock v. McEvers, 619 F. Supp. 882, 886 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (no constitutional error was
shown because of delay in presenting jury with written copies of instructions until after they had
begun deliberations, especially as jurors had sufficient knowledge of the charge and instructions
based on oral instructions).
Accordingly, on this record, the state courts’ rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or
an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable
determination of facts in light of the evidence presented. Habeas relief will be denied on Ground
Four.
4. Ground Five
Cody argues that the cumulative effect of trial and appellate counsels’ alleged errors
amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 3 at 29–31. The Appellate Division
rejected this claim on the basis that it was “without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a

written opinion.” Cody, 2020 WL 2601974, at *6 (citing R. 2:11-3(e)(2)).
Given the Appellate Division’s reasonable findings that the claims of alleged errors
discussed above were meritless, its rejection of Cody’s cumulative error claim was not contrary to
or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable
determination of facts in light of the evidence presented. See United States v. Herrera-Genao, 419
F.App’x 288, 296 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Herrera-Genao complains only of the cumulative effect of the
preceding claims; because we have found no error regarding those claims, Herrera-Genao’s claim
of cumulative error also fails.”); United States v. Tiangco, 225 F. Supp. 3d 274, 290 (D.N.J. 2016)
(“I have considered the defendant’s claims of error cumulatively. Individually, they do not raise a
substantial possibility of prejudice. Taken together, they likewise do not suggest any prejudice,

unfairness, or evidentiary insufficiency that would warrant a new trial or judgment of acquittal.”).
Habeas relief on Ground Five is denied.
C. Evidentiary Hearing and Pro Bono Counsel
“In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether
such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true,
would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474
(2007) (internal citation omitted). “A district court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing only
when the petitioner presents a prima facie showing that ‘a new hearing would have the potential
to advance the petitioner’s claim.’” Porter v. Adm’r of N.J. State Prison, No. 20-2048, 2021 WL
2910944, at *4 (3d Cir. July 12, 2021) (quoting Siehl v. Grace, 561 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2009)).
Cody has not made a prima facie showing that a hearing would advance his claims. Accordingly,
the Court finds an evidentiary hearing is not warranted and his motion for an evidentiary hearing
is denied. ECF No. 16.

Further, in light of the Court’s denial of Cody’s petition, his motion for pro bono counsel
is denied as moot. ECF No. 16.
D. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability (“COA”), an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution
of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Here,

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s habeas ruling debatable. Accordingly, no certificate
of appealability shall issue.
E. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Cody’s petition (ECF No. 3) and motion for an evidentiary
hearing and pro bono counsel (ECF No. 16) are denied and no certificate of appealability shall
issue. An appropriate order follows.

DATED: May 30, 2023 ______s_/_ C_l_a_i_re_ _C_._ C_e_c_c_h_i_ _ _ _ _____
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10655608. Public record. Not legal advice.