State of New Jersey v. Alice O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351

Background

Defendant Alice O'Donnell pleaded guilty to one count of murder in 2006 as part of a plea agreement for a 30-year sentence with 30-year parole ineligibility.
She asserted a diminished capacity defense based on mental illness; experts offered conflicting views on her capacity to form intent.
The trial court admitted a defense-commissioned expert report but sanctioned defense counsel for delays; the State later served its expert report.
Shortly before trial, defendant pleaded guilty after pressures and assurances from counsel; the court conducted a plea colloquy and accepted the plea.
Post-conviction relief (PCR) petition filed in 2011 alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to pursue diminished capacity, and inadequate consultation regarding the plea.
The trial court denied relief, including the motion to withdraw the plea, and the PCR petition was subsequently appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant made a prima facie case for ineffective assistance under Strickland	O'Donnell asserts counsel failed to pursue diminished capacity and inadequately advised on the plea.	O'Donnell contends counsel's failures prejudiced her, making withdrawal or PCR warranted.	Prima facie showing of ineffective assistance established; need evidentiary hearing.
Whether the Slater four-factor test was misapplied to deny withdrawal of plea	Defense claims factors were misapplied; diminished capacity and lack of consultation show colorable innocence and reasons for withdrawal.	State argues plea was knowingly and voluntarily made with waiver of defenses.	Slater factors misapplied; evidentiary hearing required to reassess factor analyses.
Whether the plea withdrawal and PCR requests should be treated separately and time-bar issues analyzed	Requests are distinct and should be evaluated under separate standards; excusable neglect may toll time-bar.	PCR due to ineffective assistance and plea withdrawal deserve independent consideration; delay excusable.	They are separate; court should conduct an evidentiary hearing and address excusable neglect and time-bar implications.
Whether defendant presented a prima facie case that she would have gone to trial but for counsel's errors	Plea was coerced by counsel;Had she known consequences, she would have gone to trial.	Properly counseled, she would have insisted on trial given plausible diminished capacity defense.	Prima facie showing that she would likely have gone to trial; prejudice shown.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (four-factor test for withdrawal of guilty plea; colorable innocence and prejudice considerations)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (PCR standard for fairness and reliability of verdicts)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _ (2010) (plea counseling must consider consequences beyond sentence, including immigration)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice prong in guilty plea ineffective assistance requires showing likely trial result)
State v. Rivera, 205 N.J. 472 (2011) (burden to disprove diminished capacity beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Handy, 215 N.J. 334 (2013) (detailed inquiry required before waiving insanity or diminished capacity defenses)
State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416 (1999) (plea withdrawal considerations and evidentiary standard)
State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149 (2009) (finality and burden considerations post-sentencing in plea withdrawal)
State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464 (1997) (finality vs. remedy in plea withdrawal analysis)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR standards and evidentiary hearing expectations)