Inmate Fontanez Loses Appeal; Alleged Police Misconduct, Poor Legal Aid

TRENTON – Joseph Fontanez, a man with seven aliases and many arrests, lost his recent appeal of a guilty plea he entered pertaining to a narcotics possession charge. That charge grew into resisting arrest and assault on the arresting officer in September 2009.
In a decision released by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Aug. 25, the court agreed with the denial of an evidentiary hearing appeal by the original trial court.
In that appeal, Fontanez claimed that his attorney had neglected to file proper pre-trial motions to suppress evidence (ineffective counsel). He also argued, through his new attorney, that the arresting officer, then Lower Township Detective Christopher Lambert, had violated established protocols regarding the management of confidential informants.
The Arrest
The 2009 arrest in question, reported here at that time, began when information from an informant was provided to Lower Township police that identified Fontanez, then from Del Haven, as selling illegal narcotics.
Lambert discovered that the defendant also had outstanding warrants for his arrest which caused the police to approach and attempt to stop Fontanez when he was observed on the George Redding Bridge near Wildwood.
Fontanez fled from police and was quickly captured by Lambert. Fontanez resisted Lamberts’ arrest and bit Lambert’s finger during the struggle.
After he was subdued, police recovered several bags of heroin and marijuana at the scene and along the path of the escape attempt. Fontanez was charged with narcotics violations as well as resisting arrest and aggravated assault on Lambert.
Trial and Plea Bargain
On Jan. 28, 2010, Fontanez pled guilty to some of the charges related to that incident including third-degree possession of narcotics in a negotiated plea.
The trial court judge accepted the plea after Fontanez admitted to the facts of the charges. As per the negotiation with Fontanez’ attorney, the prosecutor dropped other charges to complete the agreement with his attorney that included a 5.5-year prison sentence recommendation.
The court accepted the negotiation and sentenced Fontanez accordingly. At this point, the issue of possible police misconduct became a central issue that led to a subsequent appeal by Fontanez.
Alleged Police Misconduct
Represented by a new attorney, Fontanez filed an appeal charging that his previous attorney had failed to inform him of or investigate the alleged pattern of misconduct by Lambert.
It subsequently became known that after the denial of the initial appeal on one charge, the court dismissed the charge in question because the County Prosecutor’s Office had determined that there were “record-keeping irregularities” specific to Lambert’s management of informants.
This problem with Lamberts’ actions also resulted in the dismissal of approximately 30 charges in various cases by the County Prosecutor in 2010, including one charge against Fontanez.
According to the court, Fontanez, through his attorney, had argued that had he known about these issues with Lambert, and that one of his own charges had been dismissed because of “a corrupt cop” (Lambert), he would not have pled guilty but would have opted to go to trial.
Fontanez also argued that Lambert had taken a statement from him while he (Fontanez) was under the influence and that Lambert had conducted an illegal search of his girlfriend’s apartment.
On Aug. 25, 2011, with the consent of the County Prosecutor, the court allowed Fontanez to withdraw his guilty plea on that count. Based on the initial plea, Fontanez received a sentence of two years suspended sentence because he had already served over 500 days in jail based on that arrest.
On June 30, 2015, following oral arguments on these motions, the court denied the petitioner’s petition stating that there was no “reasonable likelihood that any of the defendant’s claims would succeed.”
This included the allegation that Lambert “cajoled” a statement out of him, and that his previous attorneys had failed to file proper motions to suppress evidence.
Conclusion
On Aug. 25, of this year, the Appellate Division found that the June 30, 2015, decision that rejected defendants’ petition for Post-Conviction Relief was proper and that defendant’s petition was without merit.  
The court also found that Fontanez was not “disadvantaged” based on the eventual withdrawal of the count by the Prosecutors’ Office and that his original attorney at trial had acted with “reasonable competence,” which is the standard used to determine the effectiveness of counsel. 
The court remanded (returned) the case to trial court for sentencing based on the fact that the minimum sentence for the conviction for a third-degree crime is three years, while defendant received only a two-year sentence.
Fontanez, 36, is incarcerated at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton. He is eligible for parole Jan. 21, 2019.
To contact Jim McCarty, email jmccarty@cmcherald.com.