SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5071-16T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM MCMILLAN, a/k/a

KHALEEL ALLAH,

WILLIAM MCMILLIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted December 12, 2018 – Decided 

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 08-03-0388.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief 

Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Shiraz Imran Deen, 

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

January 4, 2019
2

A-5071-16T2

PER CURIAM

Defendant, William McMillan, appeals from an order that denied his 

petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

After a jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder and two seconddegree weapons offenses for shooting his wife through the head, a judge 

sentenced him to an aggregate term of life imprisonment subject to the No Early 

Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on 

direct appeal but remanded for an ability-to-pay hearing and a determination of 

jail credits. State v. McMillan, No. A-2643-11 (App. Div. Nov. 10, 2015). On 

remand, the trial court ordered that defendant was not required to pay restitution 

and determined he was entitled to no jail credits. The Supreme Court denied 

certification. State v. McMillan, 224 N.J. 528 (2016).

Two months after the Supreme Court denied certification, defendant filed 

a PCR petition. In a written opinion, Judge James M. Blaney denied the petition 

without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed. On appeal, he argues:

THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE 

DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE 

CASE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS, 

IN THAT COUNSEL DID NOT ALLOW HIM TO 

PARTICIPATE IN AN ADEQUATE 

PRESENTATION OF HIS DEFENSE AND FAILED 
3

A-5071-16T2

TO INVESTIGATE IN FORMULATING A DEFENSE 

STRATEGY.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Blaney in his 

written opinion. We add the following brief comments.

Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, 

defendant alleges trial counsel failed to consult with him during all stages of his 

representation; waived defendant's appearance at some court hearings without 

defendant's consent; failed to request certain discovery; failed to properly 

investigate the case; and failed to elicit impeaching testimony from a State's 

witness at trial. Such conclusory assertions are insufficient to establish 

ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards established by Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). See

State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). Defendant's 

allegations fail to establish "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 60-61.

Defendant's allegations are without sufficient merit to warrant further 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.