STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JARHEEM RICE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6318-03T46318-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JARHEEM RICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted September 12, 2006 - Decided September 22, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County, Ind. No. 98-08-1304.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Amira R. Scurato, Assistant Deputy

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Kristen Brewer,

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jarheem Rice appeals from an order of June 15, 2004, denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). On November 14, 1997, when he was seventeen years old, defendant struck the victim, Rohan Singh, in the back of his head with a baseball bat. Although Singh initially refused medical attention, his condition soon worsened and he was unresponsive when he was admitted to the Jersey City Medical Center later the same day. The doctors determined that he suffered an inoperable intercerebral bleed. Singh died four days later. At the autopsy, a skull fracture was discovered that corresponded to the intracranial hemorrhage. The cause of death was "blunt force injury to head," and the death was characterized as a homicide.

In his written statement to the police, defendant admitted that after he left a Chinese restaurant with two of his friends, he used the bat to scare "one person" and "another two people" before he struck the victim. When he was asked why he hit the victim, defendant stated "[t]here was no reason, I just hit him in the back of his head." In his statement, defendant acknowledged that he did not know the victim, and the victim did not do anything to provoke the attack.

After the Family Part waived jurisdiction and referred the case to the Law Division, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26, defendant was indicted for murder and other charges. On June 24, 1999, defendant pled guilty to an amended charge of aggravated manslaughter in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a). He was sentenced to a twenty-five year prison term, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On appeal, we rejected defendant's claim that his sentence was excessive. See State v. Jarheem Rice, No. A-4098-99T4 (App. Div. December 19, 2000).

Defendant's PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was argued on May 27, 2004. The trial court set forth its reasons for denying the petition in a twenty-six page oral decision on June 14, 2004.

Defendant's attorney presents the following arguments:

POINT I

DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD BE GRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

A. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND CHALLENGE THE INDICTMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE STATE WITHHELD EVIDENCE FROM THE GRAND JURY WHICH WOULD HAVE CLEARLY NEGATED THE ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE INDICTMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE VICTIM'S VOLITIONAL ACTS.

C. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION AT SENTENCING.

D. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INTERVENE WHEN AN ADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS WAS NOT ELICITED AT THE GUILTY PLEA.

E. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO ASCERTAIN IF DEFENDANT WAS MEDICATED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA AND IF THE MEDICATION AFFECTED DEFENDANT'S COGNITIVE ABILITIES.

F. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED [TO] ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF PAROLE WHICH FOLLOWS SENTENCE COMPLETION AND WHICH IS MANDATED UNDER THE NO EARLY RELEASE ACT.

POINT II

DEFENDANT HAS MET ALL PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.

A. The petition for post conviction relief is not time barred.

B. The petition for post conviction relief is not procedurally barred by R. 3:22-4 or R. 3:22-5.

In a pro se brief, defendant claims his attorney failed to advise him "of the penal consequences of his plea" and failed to argue mitigating factors on his behalf. In addition, defendant alleges that he "was under the heavy influence of psychotropic medication at the time of the plea and [he] did not articulate a factual basis."

To successfully argue that trial counsel did not provide the level of assistance required under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was not only inadequate but also prejudiced his defense so that he was deprived of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 692-93 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). In a well-reasoned decision, the PCR judge considered each of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel arguments. The judge concluded that defendant failed to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland/Fritz test because counsel's performance was not deficient and defendant was not prejudiced. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Callahan in his comprehensive oral decision on June 14, 2004.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-6318-03T4

 

September 22, 2006