STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM MCMILLAN (08-03-0388, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-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 January 4, 2019
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).
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 second-
degree 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
A-5071-16T2
2
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.
A-5071-16T2
3