State of New Jersey v. Qumere McClendon ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3102-21
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
QUMERE MCCLENDON,
a/k/a QUMERE JAQUELL
MCCLENDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted January 18, 2024 – Decided July 24, 2024
Before Judges Gummer and Walcott-Henderson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
07-09-0125.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (John J. Bannan, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Regina M. Oberholzer, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Qumere McClendon appeals from an April 5, 2022 order
denying his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) based on ineffective
assistance of counsel, filed nearly three years after the court denied his first PCR
petition. Defendant claims the second PCR court erred in denying him an
evidentiary hearing on claims his PCR counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by failing to argue trial counsel was ineffective for not: investigating allegations
of wrongdoing by the State's expert witness, challenging the imposition of
consecutive sentences, challenging the applicability of the child endangerment
statute to defendant, challenging jury instructions, raising an A.D.G.1 objection
to the admissibility of his statements to police, and advising defendant about the
consequences of pleading guilty in a separate case. The court found defendant's
PCR petition untimely and without merit. We agree and affirm.
We previously affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct
appeal and recount only the facts pertinent to this appeal. Defendant was
convicted by a jury in 2011 of first-degree aggravated manslaughter and first-
degree felony murder, among other offenses, arising from the death of Keith
1
State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003).
A-3102-21
2
Mason, who was shot and killed by defendant during a robbery. Defendant also
convicted of second-degree conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery, second-
degree tampering with a witness, second-degree certain persons not to have
weapons, and third-degree endangering the welfare of Mason's young son, who
was found near the body of his slain father. State v. McClendon, No. A-0589-
11 (App. Div. March 7, 2014) (slip op at 3-9). The Supreme Court denied
defendant's petition for certification. State v. McClendon, 219 N.J. 628 (2014).
Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR on January 22, 2015, arguing
his trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by failing to: object to the
testimony of the State's medical examiner who did not perform the autopsy of
the victim, challenge the legality of defendant's arrest and custodial
interrogation, call defendant and his mother to testify at the suppression hearing,
and properly advise him on whether to testify at trial. State v. McClendon, No.
A-4731-16 (App. Div. Jan. 29, 2019) (slip op at 4-5).
Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the first PCR court denied
defendant's petition on January 30, 2017, following oral argument on procedural
and substantive grounds. We affirmed the first PCR court's denial of defendant's
petition on January 29, 2019. Id. at 5. We held defendant had failed to sustain
his burden of proving a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of trial or
A-3102-21
3
appellate counsel under Strickland 2 and determined defendant had presented no
facts in support of his claims he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel
as counsel had no obligation to advance meritless issues. Id. at 8-11.
Specifically, as to defendant's claim he was unlawfully arrested and his
statement to police should have been suppressed, we agreed with the first PCR
court's determination this argument was procedurally barred because it had been
raised and rejected on direct appeal. Id. at 8-9.
On November 18, 2019, defendant filed a second PCR petition alleging
ineffective assistance of his first PCR counsel, which is the operative petition at
issue in this appeal.
On April 5, 2022, in an oral decision, the court denied defendant's second
PCR petition as "clearly" untimely and concluded that defendant had "failed to
establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, and is not
entitled to an evidentiary hearing [under Rule 3:22-10(b)]." The court
determined that "appellate review of defendant's conviction or prior PCR
petition [did] not toll the time limitation imposed by Rule 3:22-12." Moreover,
the court thoroughly addressed each of defendant's arguments and dismissed
2
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
A-3102-21
4
them as either meritless or barred under Rule 3:22-5 as having been previously
raised and rejected on direct appeal and in the first PCR petition. 3
Defendant appealed, making the following arguments:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
SECOND PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED.
(A) Legal Standards Governing Applications For
Post-Conviction Relief.
(B) Defendant's Second Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief Is not Procedurally Barred.
POINT II
BECAUSE MR. MCCLENDON RECEIVED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE
PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR.
MCCLENDON'S SECOND PETITION FOR PCR.
(A) Legal Standards Governing Applications For
Post-Conviction Relief.
(B) Defense Counsel were Ineffective for Failing to
Object to Erroneous Jury Instructions or Raise a Jury
Instruction Argument on Appeal.
3
Under Rule 3:22-5, "[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground for
relief is conclusive whether made in the proceedings resulting in the conviction
or in any post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to this rule or prior to the
adoption thereof, or in any appeal taken from such proceedings." [R. 3:22-5.]
A-3102-21
5
(C) Defense Counsel were Ineffective for Failing to
Challenge the Applicability of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a),
Child Endangerment to the Facts.
(D) Defense Counsel were Ineffective for Failing to
Challenge the Imposition of Consecutive Sentences for
Witness Tampering and Child Endangerment.
(E) Defense Counsel were Ineffective Because They
Failed to Investigate Allegations of Wrongdoing by the
State's Expert Witness and Failed To Assert Brady4 and
Giglio5 Violations.
(F) Defense Counsel was Ineffective When She
Advised Defendant To Plead Guilty and be Sentenced
on an Unrelated Case with the Result that He Received
Gap Time Credit Instead of Jail Credit.
(G) Defense Counsel were Ineffective for Failing to
Raise an A.G.D. Objection to the Admissibility of the
Statements to the Police.
Defendant also filed a pro se brief with two additional arguments:
POINT [I]
DEFENSE WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO
RAISE AN A.G.D. OBJECTION TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF [HIS] STATEMENT POLICE.
POINT II
DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN
UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT WAS VIOLATED[.]
4
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
5
Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
A-3102-21
6
Defendant acknowledges that his second PCR petition was not filed within
one year of the denial of the first PCR petition but argues that it was nonetheless
timely because it was filed within one year of our affirmance of the denial of his
first PCR petition.
Under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2), no second or subsequent petition for PCR,
"[n]otwithstanding any other provision in [Rule 3:22-12] . . . shall be filed more
than one year after the latest of":
(A) the date on which the constitutional right asserted
was initially recognized by the United States Supreme
Court or the Supreme Court of New Jersey, if that right
has been newly recognized by either of those Courts
and made retroactive by either of those Courts to cases
on collateral review; or
(B) the date on which the factual predicate for the relief
sought was discovered, if that factual predicate could
not have been discovered earlier through the exercise
of reasonable diligence; or
(C) the date of the denial of the first or subsequent
application for post-conviction relief where ineffective
assistance of counsel that represented the defendant on
the first or subsequent application for post-conviction
relief is being alleged.
[R. 3:22-12(a)(2)(A) to (C).]
A-3102-21
7
When a petitioner files a second or subsequent PCR, he must meet the
requirements set forth in Rule 3:22-4. Rule 3:22-4(b)(1) requires dismissal of a
second PCR petition if untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2).
Application of those Rules makes plain the PCR court was correct in
dismissing defendant's second PCR petition as untimely. Defendant filed his
second petition on November 18, 2019, almost three years after the court denied
his first PCR petition on January 30, 2017. Under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(A)-(C),
the one-year time limitation in which to file a second or subsequent PCR petition
is not subject to relaxation. Moreover, under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) and Rule 3:22-
4(b), the one-year period began to run on January 30, 2017, the date the first
PCR court denied his first petition. See State v. Szemple, 247 N.J. 82, 98 (2021)
(explaining "[s]econd or subsequent petitions are barred unless they are filed
within one year of the denial of the previous PCR petition"); State v. Jackson,
454 N.J. Super. 284, 292 (App. Div. 2018) (beginning calculation of the one-
year period on the day the first PCR petition was denied, even though the
defendant had filed an appeal with this court and subsequently filed a petition
for certification with the Supreme Court).
Accordingly, given the passage of more than one year between the denial
of defendant's first petition and filing of the second PCR petition, the court
A-3102-21
8
properly dismissed defendant's second PCR petition. We therefore reject
defendant's argument the one-year window for filing his second PCR petition
began on January 29, 2019, the date of our decision affirming the denial of his
first PCR petition, and agree with the PCR court that defendant's second petition
was untimely.
Although the PCR court concluded defendant's second PCR petition was
untimely, the court analyzed the merits of each of defendant's claims, thoroughly
explaining why none would have established a prima facie case of ineffective
assistance of counsel, entitling defendant to an evidentiary hearing. The court
also noted that PCR counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise
meritless arguments. See State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 625 (1990) ("The
failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does not constitute ineffective
assistance of counsel.").
To establish a right to relief under Strickland, a petitioner must show not
only that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, but that the
attorney's substandard representation prejudiced the defense. See Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687. Here, the PCR court determined that in defendant's second
petition "the alleged deficiencies of prior counsel raised by [p]etitioner are
numerous, and at times, exactly the same as those previously raised and disposed
A-3102-21
9
of at his PCR or in appeal."6 State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 484 (1997) ("when
the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel has already been raised on direct
appeal, it may be procedurally barred on PCR[]") (citing R. 3:22–5).
The PCR court considered the merits of defendant's claims of ineffective
assistance, including: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
erroneous jury instructions, failing to seek dismissal of the endangering charge
on the basis of insufficient evidence, failing to impeach the medical examiner
based on evidence allegedly withheld by the State, and advising him to plead
guilty in an unrelated case, and appellate and first PCR counsel were ineffective
for failing to raise those claims. The PCR court found defendant had failed to
make a showing under either prong of Strickland. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at
700 (explaining a failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard
requires rejection of a PCR petition). We agree. Based on our de novo review
of these claims, defendant cannot establish PCR, appellate or trial counsel
rendered constitutionally deficient performance under either prong of
Strickland.
6
Specifically, the court determined defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel
claims on issues related to his arrest and custodial interrogation, the imposition
of consecutive sentences on the witness tampering and endangering charges had
been previously raised and rejected on direct appeal and in his first PCR petition.
A-3102-21
10
Further, because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of
ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, no evidentiary hearing was
warranted. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1992).
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's
arguments, it is because we have determined they are of insufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-3102-21
11