Date: 04-16-2016

Case Style: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ABBIJIAL SLOAN

Case Number: A-5745-13T1

Judge: Marianne Espinosa, Heidi Currier

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Plaintiff's Attorney: John J. Hoffman, Jennifer Kmieciak

Defendant's Attorney: Joseph E. Krakora, Charles H. Landesman

Description: 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.
A-5745-13T1 3
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: (l) 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,
l04 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
A-5745-13T1 4
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.

Outcome: Accordingly, Judge Ravin correctly concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: