SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5207-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KAFELE K. BOMANI, a/k/a

SHAUN A. GOODING, SHAWN 

GOODING, and SHAUN GRANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted January 14, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 09-08-2019

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Craig S. Leeds, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Nicole Lynn Campellone, Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 10, 2020
2

A-5207-17T1

Defendant Kafele Bomani appeals from an order denying his petition for 

post-conviction relief (PCR). He contends that his trial and appellate counsel 

provided him with ineffective assistance. Having conducted a de novo review 

of the record, we affirm substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Patricia 

M. Wild in her thorough twenty-page opinion denying the PCR petition after 

hearing oral argument, but without an evidentiary hearing.

A jury convicted defendant of first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 

2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2); second- and third-degree aggravated 

assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2); and three weapons 

offenses, including second-degree certain persons not to have a weapon, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-7.

The evidence at trial established that defendant shot another man in the 

early morning hours of October 20, 2007, outside the Wyndham Resort Hotel in 

Atlantic City. The shooting was captured on video by a hotel surveillance 

camera and witnessed by a hotel security guard who was watching the monitor 

of the surveillance camera. A hotel bellman also witnessed the shooting. Both 

the security guard and bellman saw the shooter get into a sports utility vehicle 

(SUV) and the bellman noted the vehicle's license plate number. Defendant was 

the registered owner of the SUV. A subsequent search of defendant's apartment 
3

A-5207-17T1

found clothing, including a distinctive hat, that matched the clothing and hat 

worn by the shooter as seen in the video.

The victim survived the shooting but refused to cooperate in the 

investigation of the crime. At trial, defendant was identified as the shooter by 

the security guard and by DNA evidence from the hat. 

The video surveillance recording was admitted into evidence but was not 

in its original form. Detectives had not been able to make a copy of the digital 

surveillance recording from the hotel security system. Consequently, they used 

their own video recorder to film what they were looking at on the monitor in the 

security office. After conducted a pre-trial hearing, the trial court ruled that the 

copied surveillance evidence was admissible at trial. At trial the State used a 

video expert to explain the recording process to the jury.

After the jury convicted defendant, he moved for a new trial contending 

that there was newly discovered evidence. In support of that motion, he 

presented a certification from an inmate named Matthew Hayes who had been 

housed at the county jail at the same time as defendant. Hayes claimed that he 

was a friend of the victim and he had been with the victim at the time of the 

shooting. Hayes also claimed that it was not defendant who shot the victim. 

The trial court conducted a post-trial hearing, took testimony from Hayes, and 
4

A-5207-17T1

concluded that his testimony was not credible. Accordingly, the trial court 

denied defendant's motion for a new trial.

Initially, defendant was sentenced to an extended term of life in prison, 

with a period of parole ineligibility, on the conviction for attempted murder. All 

the other convictions were merged with his attempted murder conviction, except 

for the certain persons weapons conviction. On the certain persons conviction, 

defendant was sentenced to a concurrent prison term of ten years.

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence. On his first appeal, we 

affirmed defendant's convictions, but reversed his life sentence and remanded 

for resentencing. State v. Bomani, No. A-3373-11 (App. Div. Mar. 3, 2014). 

At his second sentencing, defendant was sentenced to thirty-five years in 

prison, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. 

Defendant again appealed his sentence. We reversed and remanded for another 

sentencing because the sentencing court had considered "what defendant's 

sentence 'would have been if he had accomplished what he intended,' i.e., 

murder." State v. Bomani, A-0017-15 (App. Div. Feb. 9, 2016). 

In July 2016, defendant was sentenced for a third time. On the conviction 

for attempted murder, defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, 

subject to NERA. All his other convictions were merged, except for the certain 
5

A-5207-17T1

persons conviction. On that conviction, defendant was sentenced to ten years in 

prison to run concurrent with his sentence for attempted murder.

Defendant filed a petition for PCR.1 He was assigned counsel, and Judge 

Wild heard oral argument on the petition. On March 16, 2018, Judge Wild 

issued a written opinion and order denying defendant's petition. 

In her opinion, Judge Wild addressed the eleven arguments raised by 

defendant and his PCR counsel. Judge Wild found that two of defendant's 

arguments had been raised on his first direct appeal and were, therefore, 

precluded from being raised again. See State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 484 

(1997); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992); R. 3:22-4. Judge Wild then 

comprehensively reviewed each of defendant's remaining arguments and found 

that none of them established a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Finally, Judge Wild found that defendant had submitted nothing that 

created material issues of fact warranting an evidentiary hearing. See Preciose, 

129 N.J. at 462-63; R. 3:22-10(e).

1 The petition included in the appendix does not identify when it was filed. In 

his brief defendant stated that his PCR petition was filed on December 10, 2014. 

In its brief, the State "adopted" defendant's statement of the procedural history. 

The State has not argued that defendant's petition was untimely.
6

A-5207-17T1

On this appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his PCR petition on 

numerous grounds. Specifically, he presents the following arguments:

POINT I – DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN 

VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEW 

JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS AND THE LOWER 

COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING OTHERWISE

A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL 

PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIMS OF 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 

AND PETITIONS FOR POST 

CONVICTION RELIEF

B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO RETAIN 

A VIDEO FORENSIC EXPERT TO 

REFUTE THE STATE'S EXPERT 

WITNESS, DET. JOHANNESSEN, 

REGARDING CRITICAL EVIDENCE, 

SPECIFICALLY, THE SURVEILLANCE 

VIDEO ALLEGEDLY CAPTURING THE 

ACTUAL CRIME

C. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO 

OBTAIN AND REVIEW ALL OF THE 

DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, AND 

SUBSEQUENTLY, FAILING TO 

PROVIDE ALL RELEVANT 

DISCOVERY TO THE DEFENDANT

D. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO 

CONDUCT PRE-TRIAL
7

A-5207-17T1

INVESTIGATION OF ALL POTENTIAL 

WITNESSES HAVING RELEVANT 

AND/OR EXCULPATORY 

INFORMATION BEARING ON THE 

CASE AND THEN CALLING THEM AS 

DEFENSE WITNESSES

E. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO 

PROPERLY OBJECT WHEN THE 

PROSECUTOR COMMITTED 

FLAGRANT MISCONDUCT AND 

TAINTED THE TRIAL BY TELLING 

THE JURY THAT HE WOULD NEVER 

HAVE MADE A PLEA OFFER TO THE 

VICTIM IN THE VICTIM'S OWN 

CRIMINAL MATTER, GRANTING THE 

VICTIM LENIENCY IF HE TESTIFIED 

AGAINST THE DEFENDANT 

BECAUSE THAT WOULD 

CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL BRIBE

F. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE IN NOT CHALLENGING 

THE PROSECUTOR'S 

VINDICTIVENESS IN SEEKING A 

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR 

ATTEMPTED MURDER BECAUSE 

DEFENDANT ELECTED TO EXERCISE 

HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO 

A REASONABLE BAIL AND LITIGATE 

A MOTION FOR REDUCED BAIL

G. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE BY ADVISING THE 

DEFENDANT THAT IF HE TESTIFIED 

AT TRIAL, THE STATE WOULD BE 

PERMITTED TO USE HIS CRIMINAL
8

A-5207-17T1

HISTORY TO IMPEACH HIS 

CREDIBILITY

H. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS 

INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO 

REQUEST AN ADVERSE INFERENCE 

CHARGE FOR THE STATE'S LOSS 

AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF 

MATERIAL EVIDENCE

POINT II – THE DEFENDANT'S STATE AND 

FEDERAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL WERE 

VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO 

ENFORCE A SEQUESTRATION ORDER FOR ONE 

OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES

POINT III – DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE 

COUNSEL

POINT IV – DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF POST CONVICTION 

RELIEF COUNSEL

POINT V – THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE 

ERRORS COMPLAINED OF RENDERED THE

TRIAL UNFAIR

POINT VI – THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN 

DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING 

HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

All but one of defendant's appellate arguments were presented to Judge 

Wild. We reject the repeated arguments for the reasons explained by Judge Wild 

in her well-reasoned opinion. In short, Judge Wild correctly analyzed each of 
9

A-5207-17T1

those arguments, applied the well-established law, and found that none of those 

arguments satisfied the two prongs required to establish ineffective assistance 

of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. 

Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 57-58 (1987). Having conducted a de novo review, we agree 

with the conclusions reached by Judge Wild.

Defendant also presents one new argument; contending that his PCR 

counsel was ineffective in two respects. First, defendant asserts that his PCR 

counsel failed to retain a forensic video expert to support his petition. Second, 

defendant contends that his PCR counsel was ineffective in not submitting to 

the PCR court two letters he wrote on March 23, 2010 and April 18, 2010.

At trial, the State had presented a forensic video expert to explain how the 

hotel surveillance video had been copied. In his PCR petition, defendant 

contended that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to retain an 

independent expert to challenge the State's video expert. Judge Wild rejected 

that argument because defendant had not presented any facts as to what such a 

rebuttal expert would have contended and whether a defense expert could have 

raised legitimate grounds for challenging the use of the video. Accordingly, 

under established case law, Judge Wild rejected that argument. See State v. 

Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). 
10 A-5207-17T1

On appeal, defendant argues that his PCR counsel was ineffective in not 

retaining a video expert. He also argues that his PCR counsel was ineffective in 

not presenting two letters, which he argues would have shown that his trial 

counsel was ineffective in not investigating the potential witness, Matthew 

Hayes.

Neither of these new arguments satisfies either prong of the Strickland 

test. 466 U.S. at 687; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58. There is still no showing that a 

defense video expert could have made any legitimate arguments to rebut the 

State's expert. Moreover, the letters go to an issue that was considered and 

rejected on direct appeal. Finally, there is no showing of prejudice. Defendant 

was accorded a jury trial. The evidence at trial included testimony from two 

eyewitnesses to the shooting, as well as the video. There was also strong 

physical evidence in the form of clothing, the hat, and the SUV, all of which 

linked defendant to the shooting. Defendant's arguments about ineffective 

assistance of his PCR counsel do not undermine any of that strong evidence. 

Affirmed.