11-16-07 A-3063-05T4
Defendant appealed an order denying his petition for postconviction
relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel. Defendant argued that his appellate
counsel's failure to communicate with him regarding his appeal
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel per se. Secondly,
defendant sought to extend the holding in State v. Rue, 175 N.J.
1 (2002), to appellate counsel. In Rue, the Supreme Court held
that an attorney representing a defendant in a PCR petition is
required to communicate with his client, investigate the
client's claim, and advance all arguments requested by the
client.
We held that the two-prong Strickland analysis is to be
used in such cases and, therefore, that the failure to
communicate is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel. We
also declined to apply Rue to appellate counsel, finding it was
inappropriate and unnecessary.
