State of New Jersey v. Edward Holland, 158 A.3d 597

Edward Holland was convicted by a jury of third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute and simple possession; sentenced to an aggregate seven-year term with three years parole ineligibility after an extended term was imposed.
On PCR, Holland argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for recusal because the trial judge had previously represented Holland as a criminal defense lawyer in the 1990s.
Defense counsel testified the parties knew and that Holland wanted to proceed before his former attorney-turned-judge; Holland testified he was bothered by the judge's prior representation.
The PCR court found the judge likely did not recall the prior representation, treated counsel’s inaction as reasonable trial strategy, and denied relief for lack of prejudice given the strength of the State’s case.
The Appellate Division reversed: it concluded the judge’s prior representation created an appearance of impropriety that required disqualification as a matter of law in a criminal case and vacated the conviction, remanding for retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to recuse the trial judge	PCR court/State argued counsel’s decision was tactical and not deficient; no prejudice given overwhelming evidence	Holland argued counsel should have sought recusal because the judge had been his criminal defense lawyer, creating a conflict/appearance problem	Court reversed PCR denial: the judge’s prior representation required disqualification in a criminal case and relief is warranted regardless of asserted trial strategy or strength of evidence
Whether a judge who previously represented a criminal defendant must be disqualified	State/PCR court implied recusal not mandatory if judge did not recall representation and parties acquiesced	Holland argued judicial impartiality and appearance of impropriety mandated disqualification	Appellate Division held that in criminal cases prior attorney-client relationships pose a strict disqualification concern and the judge should have been disqualified; appearance of bias cannot be ignored
Whether a party’s (or counsel’s) waiver or strategic decision can validate a judge’s prior representation	State and PCR court relied on presumed waiver/strategy to deny relief	Holland argued waiver cannot cure the non-waivable appearance of judicial impropriety in this context	Court held such waiver/strategy cannot cure the impropriety; public confidence and impartiality concerns prevail

State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583 (discussing nature of post-conviction relief)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (standard for PCR proof and scope)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adoption of Strickland in NJ)
DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (judicial impartiality and Code of Judicial Conduct principles)
State v. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34 (judicial conduct, avoiding appearance of impropriety)
Rivers v. Cox-Rivers, 346 N.J. Super. 418 (bright-line rule re: prior representation requiring nullification of judge's actions)
State v. Horton, 199 N.J. Super. 368 (reversal when judge had been defendant's prior attorney)
State v. McCann, 391 N.J. Super. 542 (appearance of partiality in prior-relationship contexts)