Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5745-13T1
04-15-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABBIJIAL SLOAN, a/k/a ABBIJAIL SLOAN, ABBIJIAL L. SLOAN, MONTE SLOAN, and GEORGE SLOAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Charles H. Landesman, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jennifer Kmieciak, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Currier. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 08-05-1453. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Charles H. Landesman, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jennifer Kmieciak, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Michael L. Ravin in his written opinion.
Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife, weapons offenses and endangering the welfare of a child. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sloan, No. A-3447-10 (Dec. 18, 2012), certif. denied, 214 N.J. 118 (2013). The facts underlying his conviction are set forth in our opinion and need not be repeated here. However, we note the evidence included defendant's confession to police officers upon their arrival that he stabbed his wife because she was cheating on him and "deserved" it, as well as his testimony at trial that he committed the murder.
Defendant presents the following issues for our consideration:
POINT I
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT EXPLORING A MENTAL HEALTH DEFENSE WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED.
POINT II
PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
A. INTRODUCTION.
B. DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
POINT III
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE GIVEN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
The standard for determining whether counsel's performance was ineffective for purposes of the Sixth Amendment was formulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, l04 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, l05 N.J. 42 (l987). In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must meet the two-prong test of establishing both that: (1) counsel's performance was deficient and he or she made errors that were so egregious that counsel was not functioning effectively as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the defect in performance prejudiced defendant's rights to a fair trial such that there exists a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698.
In his PCR petition, defendant alleged thirty-four grounds to support his claim he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Judge Ravin concluded defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to explore a defense based upon his mental health was procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22- 4(a)(1) and (3). He noted further that defendant failed to provide any evidence regarding his mental health to show prejudice caused by counsel's alleged deficiency. Judge Ravin cited the lack of evidence to show that the result of the trial would have been different absent the other alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance.
We are satisfied from our review of the record that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffectiveness of trial counsel within the Strickland-Fritz test. Accordingly, Judge Ravin correctly concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION