STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BYRON SOLOMON (16-04-1282, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5311-18

Background:

In 2017 Byron Solomon pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter and second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon in exchange for the State's recommendation of a 14-year term. The factual basis: Solomon and two others shot and burned the victim; Solomon owned an unpermitted .38 caliber handgun.
At the May 9, 2017 plea allocution Solomon affirmed he understood English, was competent, not coerced, and was satisfied with counsel. He was sentenced June 27, 2017 to 14 years subject to the No Early Release Act plus 5 years parole supervision; the judge found aggravating factor nine and no mitigators.
Solomon filed a pro se PCR petition (May 2018) asserting ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to fully investigate, file motions (including severance/dismissal), raise hardship or other mitigators, and for coercing him into pleading guilty; PCR counsel was appointed.
Judge Wigler denied the PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing (Feb. 26, 2019), issuing a detailed opinion applying Strickland/Fritz and concluding the claims were procedurally barred or failed to establish a prima facie case; the judge characterized plea counsel as experienced and strategic.
On appeal Solomon’s sole new claim is that Judge Wigler displayed bias in favor of plea counsel during the PCR hearing (violating Canons 1 and 2), requiring reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Solomon's Argument	Held
Judicial bias at PCR hearing	Judge’s comments were reasonable observations; no objective basis for disqualification	Judge’s praise of plea counsel and critical tone toward Solomon showed bias and appearance of impropriety	Affirmed — no objective, reasonable doubt about impartiality; comments did not show deep‑seated favoritism
Ineffective assistance — failure to file motions/investigate	Counsel made strategic choices to negotiate plea rather than pursue motions; no prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice	Counsel failed to investigate and omitted motions that could have affected case outcome	Denied — strategic decisions reasonable; defendant did not meet Strickland/Fritz prima facie burden
Ineffective assistance — coercion/invalid plea	Plea allocution shows plea was knowing, voluntary, and defendant satisfied with counsel; statements at allocution rebut coerced‑plea claim	Counsel pressured and threatened with longer sentence, causing involuntary plea	Denied — allocution and record show plea was knowing and voluntary; no reasonable probability of different result
Ineffective assistance — sentencing mitigation omitted	Counsel argued for a lower term; alleged omissions (e.g., athletic history, hardship) would not have altered sentencing given aggravators	Counsel failed to present mitigating factors (hardship, athletic achievements) and did not argue N.J.S.A. 2C:44‑1(b)(11)	Denied — judge found no applicable mitigators; omissions not shown to have produced prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (N.J. 1987) (adoption of Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (N.J. 1992) (prima facie standard for PCR and viewing facts favorably to defendant)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (N.J. 1997) (defendant must show reasonable likelihood of success to obtain evidentiary hearing)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial comments do not constitute bias unless showing deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)
State v. Presley, 436 N.J. Super. 440 (App. Div. 2014) (appearance‑of‑bias requires objectively reasonable doubt about impartiality)
State v. DeNike, 196 N.J. 502 (N.J. 2008) (standard for objective reasonableness in bias claims)