STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONNELL GIDEON(05-10-4097, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1249-16T3

Background

Defendant Donnell Gideon was convicted by a jury of aggravated manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit murder, weapons offenses, and hindering after a 2004 shooting; he received a 27-year sentence with an 85% parole disqualifier.
At trial, the State relied on a recorded statement in which Gideon described riding with others who returned fire and later learned three were injured and one killed; Gideon testified differently, claiming he stayed home that night and identified two alibi witnesses (his mother and girlfriend).
Gideon later filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition asserting trial counsel failed to investigate alibi witnesses; this court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing finding a prima facie ineffective-assistance claim.
At the PCR evidentiary hearing, Gideon’s mother and girlfriend testified they were with him the night of the shooting and had offered to be alibi witnesses; the PCR judge found those two witnesses not credible.
The PCR judge found trial counsel credible but concluded counsel had a duty to investigate the potential alibi revealed during Gideon’s trial testimony and failed to do so, ruling that counsel’s performance was deficient and granting PCR without making explicit Strickland prejudice findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gideon)	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate alibi witnesses	Counsel’s failure was deficient but the PCR court did not analyze prejudice under Strickland; relief should be reversed or remanded for proper prejudice analysis	Counsel’s failure deprived him of the jury’s chance to hear alibi testimony; PCR relief appropriate	Court agreed counsel was deficient but remanded because the PCR court failed to analyze the Strickland prejudice prong properly
Whether the PCR court’s factual credibility findings are reviewable	State contends the court’s findings must be supported by record and proper legal analysis	Gideon emphasizes the need for an evidentiary hearing and proper Strickland application	Appellate court defers to credibility findings but requires the PCR court to apply Strickland prejudice analysis on remand
Appropriate remedy when deficient performance is found but prejudice not addressed	State argues remedy cannot stand without prejudice showing under Strickland	Gideon argues vacatur justified because jury was denied alibi evidence	Court reverses grant without prejudice findings and remands for further factual/legal findings consistent with Strickland
Standard of review for mixed law/fact PCR determinations	State urges de novo review of legal conclusions and deference to factual findings	Gideon relies on PCR court’s factual assessments to support relief	Court reiterates deference to factual findings supported by record and de novo review of legal conclusions; remand required for proper legal application

Key Cases Cited

State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR burden: establish right to relief by preponderance; factual specificity required)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances where prejudice may be presumed)
State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (PCR factual specificity and court’s obligation to articulate basis for decision)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (deference to PCR factual findings supported by credible evidence)
State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391 (2004) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact in PCR appeals)