STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAHIED A. ABDULLAH (07-01-0254, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4216-16T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHAHIED A. ABDULLAH,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted October 11, 2018 – Decided November 30, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 07-01-0254.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Michele A. Adubato, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Tiffany M. Russo,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Shahied A. Abdullah, appeals from the February 21, 2017
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) after an evidentiary
hearing. On March 5, 2008, defendant was convicted of second-degree
aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), and second-degree aggravated
assault by eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(6), after being tried, in absentia, because
he did not appear for trial. After petitioning the court to vacate his conviction
and grant him a new trial for ineffective assistance of counsel, Judge Verna G.
Leath, J.S.C., on December 20, 2016, granted defendant's request for an
evidentiary hearing. Considering the testimony of defendant's trial counsel, the
judge denied defendant's petition.
This appeal followed. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I
SINCE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND
APPELLATE COUNSEL, THE DENIAL OF HIS PCR
PETITION BY THE COURT WAS ERROR.
A. FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO
COMMUNICATE WITH CLIENT PRIOR TO TRIAL.
B. FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO MOVE FOR
A MISTRIAL, OBJECT OR OBTAIN A CURATIVE
INSTRUCTION AFTER THE STATE'S IMPROPER
COMMENTS ON DEFENDANT'S POST ARREST
SILENCE.
A-4216-16T2
2
Because we affirm for the reasons explained in the thorough written
opinion of Judge Leath we need not fully re-address defendant's arguments, but
we add the following comments. We reject defendant's argument he was denied
effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel under the standard set forth in
Strickland/Fritz. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz,
105 N.J. 42 (1987). Defendant has not shown counsels' performances were
insufficient because neither trial nor appellate counsel made "errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Nor has defendant shown he was
prejudiced by the deficient performance or that counsels' performances fell
below objective standards of reasonableness. Id. at 687-88. Defendant's
arguments to the contrary are without sufficient merit to warrant further
discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-4216-16T2
3