Opinion ID: 2323789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Post Conviction Relief Application

Text: Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. In September 2005, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) and an amended petition was later filed by counsel. Defendant essentially claimed that she was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. At the PCR hearing, PCR counsel argued that the sentencing represented a total breakdown of the adversarial proceedings inasmuch as [t]rial counsel failed to act as an advocate as a result of a plea agreement that was against public policy and unconstitutional. Trial counsel failed to argue mitigating factors, or to bring to the attention of the sentencing court the statements suggesting defendant was a battered woman, even though nothing in the plea agreement precluded him from doing so. Trial counsel failed to object to Detective Simmons's speaking as a victim-impact witness or to the introduction of the video. PCR counsel contended that the [p]rosecutor went to great lengths to resolve this case in a way that protected the victim's image at the expense of the defendant and ... justice. PCR counsel attached to the petition the witness statements obtained by the defense investigator in 2000 that supported defendant's claim that she had been beaten, threatened, and continuously verbally belittled by her husband. PCR counsel also introduced the sixteen-page report of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical psychologist who evaluated defendant on September 15, 2006 and who reviewed the case file, including defense investigative reports. Defendant reported to Dr. Hughes that, since 2001, she had been receiving individual and group counseling in prison from a domestic-violence agency. Defendant described an abusive relationship with her husband dating back to the late 1980s. Jimmy would throw objects at her when angry and monitor her behavior. Jimmy first hit her across the head with the back of his hand after she forgot to pick up his uniforms from the cleaners. He apologized, but she did not make that mistake again. Six months before the shooting, defendant attempted to leave her husband. Jimmy caught her in the act as he was driving by in his police cruiser. Jimmy jumped out of his vehicle, pushed her into the house and beat her on the legs with his nightstick. She described incidents of physical abusehis pulling hair out of her head, hitting her in the face causing black eyes, and slamming her head against a windowand psychological abuse, such as threats to kill her. Her description of the August 19, 1999 shooting was similar to the one she first gave to the police: she intended to scare Jimmy, and the gun went off accidentally. Dr. Hughes concluded that the evidence revealed that [defendant's] report of domestic violence in her relationship with her husband, James Hess, is consistent with a pattern of moderate-to-severe intimate partner abuse, including physical and psychological abuse and consistent with what is commonly referred to as Battered Women's Syndrome. The State submitted a certification from defendant's trial attorney in which he averred that he discussed with defendant the terms and conditions of the plea agreement and the potential aggravating and mitigating circumstances based on the available evidence, and that he considered the offer fair. Nowhere in the certification does defendant's trial counsel explain why he did not present at sentencing the mitigating evidence compiled during his investigation that corroborated a portrait of defendant as a battered woman or why he did not object to Detective Simmons's victim-impact statement or to the introduction of the video. Based on her trial attorney's alleged professional deficiencies at sentencing, defendant requested a new sentencing hearing. The PCR court denied defendant an evidentiary hearing and rejected her application for relief. The court noted that there was little, if any, argument with regard to mitigating factors at sentencing. Nevertheless, the PCR court believed the finding of any mitigating factors by the sentencing court was discretionary, not obligatory, and that an objection to the sentencethe failure to find mitigating factorsshould have been raised on direct appeal. With regard to the introduction of Detective Simmons's statement, the court acknowledged that it was a far stretch to consider Simmons as a family member and as a victim. The court also expressed some concerns about the video, in particular the television tape of the funeral and the end which was the picture of the headstone. But the court observed that defense counsel raised no objection to either Simmons's statement or the video. The PCR court concluded that defendant's claims challenging the excessiveness of her sentence were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal, see R. 3:22-4, and that defendant had not established that her sixth amendment rights, or any other rights, were violated by her willingness to enter into this [plea] agreement.