STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES COLEMAN A/K/A IBN EL-AMIN Â PASHA(04-03-0255, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3938-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES COLEMAN, a/k/a IBN
EL-AMIN PASHA,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted November 9, 2017 – Decided December 1, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No.
04-03-0255.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Michele A. Adubato, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Nancy A. Hulett,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant James Coleman, also known as Ibn El-Amin Pasha,
appeals from a March 4, 2016 order denying his petition for post-
conviction relief (PCR) after oral argument but without an
evidentiary hearing. We affirm substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge James F. Mulvihill's written opinion.
After two trials due to defendant's successful request to
bifurcate the indictment, defendant was convicted of two 2003
shooting murders and numerous other charges involving stalking and
terrorizing his wife, at times with a gun, which resulted in a
sentence of 168 years in prison. See State v. Pasha, No. A-1590-
05 (App. Div. July 31, 2008) (slip op. at 1-2) (affirming
defendant's convictions on direct appeal), certif. denied, State
v. Pasha, 197 N.J. 14 (2008). Defendant mounted a spirited defense
at his trials. Although defendant did not testify, he called both
fact and expert witnesses.
In his PCR appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I: THE PCR COURT'S DENIAL OF
PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WAS ERRONEOUS.
POINT II: THE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS WERE NOT
BARRED BY R. 3:22-5.
POINT III: THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE MR.
PASHA WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY BOTH THE UNITED STATES
AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION.
New Jersey courts follow the rule formulated by the United
States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984). To
2 A-3938-15T1
show ineffective assistance a defendant must identify acts or
omissions showing unreasonable professional judgment, and then
must show that these errors had a prejudicial effect on the
conviction. State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). The same
standards are applied to ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel claims. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 518 (2004).
In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we
apply a strong presumption that defense counsel "rendered adequate
assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of
reasonable professional judgment." Strickland, supra, 466 U.S.
at 690, 104 S. Ct. at 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 695. "[C]omplaints
'merely of matters of trial strategy' will not serve to ground a
constitutional claim of inadequacy . . . ." Fritz, supra, 105
N.J. at 54 (quoting State v. Williams, 39 N.J. 471, 489, cert.
denied, 374 U.S. 855, 83 S. Ct. 1924, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1075 (1963),
overruled in part on other grounds by, State v. Czachor, 82 N.J.
392, 402 (1980)). "The quality of counsel's performance cannot
be fairly assessed by focusing on a handful of issues while
ignoring the totality of counsel's performance in the context of
the State's evidence of defendant's guilt." State v. Castagna,
187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006). "As a general rule, strategic
miscalculations or trial mistakes are insufficient to warrant
reversal 'except in those rare instances where they are of such
3 A-3938-15T1
magnitude as to thwart the fundamental guarantee of [a] fair
trial.'" Id. at 314-15 (quoting State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22,
42 (1991)). "[A]n otherwise valid conviction will not be
overturned merely because the defendant is dissatisfied with his
or her counsel's exercise of judgment during the trial." State
v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008) (quoting Castagna, supra, 187
N.J. at 314).
Judge Mulvihill reviewed in detail defendant's twenty-five
claims of defense counsel's trial errors and seven claims of
ineffective appellate counsel. On appeal, appellate PCR counsel
grouped these claims into the following categories: 1) failure to
conduct reasonable investigation; 2) failure to call certain
witnesses; 3) failure to request a mistrial; 4) failure to object
to admission of certain evidence; 5) failure to conduct adequate
cross-examination of pivotal witnesses; 6) failure to communicate
a plea offer to petitioner;1 7) failure to move for severance into
four separate trials; 8) other claims; 9) ineffectiveness of
appellate counsel; 10) cumulative errors; and 11) prejudice.
Judge Mulvihill discussed the alleged errors in light of the
State's evidence, finding that had defense counsel used the trial
1
The purported failure to communicate a plea offer was prior to
a superseding indictment, and given defendant's continuing claim
of innocence, he could not have given a factual basis in any event.
State v. Tacetta, 200 N.J. 183, 186 (2009).
4 A-3938-15T1
strategies now advanced by defendant, it would not have changed
the outcome. Post-trial and post-appeal disagreement with
strategy does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Castagna, supra, 187 N.J. at 314-15. Judge Mulvihill determined
that defendant failed to demonstrate his trial or appellate defense
was constitutionally defective. He delineated the reasons in a
careful and thorough fifty-three-page written opinion.
Affirmed.
5 A-3938-15T1