STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OMAR SHAHEER THOMASÂ (04-02-0173, 04-02-0174 AND 04-02-0175, MORRISCOUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0469-15T3

Background

Defendant Omar Shaheer Thomas was tried for two murders and related offenses arising from an armed robbery; after a 29-day trial a jury convicted him and he received consecutive life sentences with parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act.
Before trial, Judge Ahto conducted a 17-day Miranda suppression hearing and denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements; interlocutory appeals were denied.
Defendant filed a PCR petition claiming trial counsel coerced him into waiving his right to testify at the suppression hearing and at trial; he also claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue on direct appeal.
The PCR court (Judge Ahto) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to make out a Strickland prima facie claim and pointing to trial transcript warnings that defendant repeatedly declined to testify.
The court reasoned counsel’s decision not to call defendant was strategic because his testimony would have exposed him to cross-examination about inculpatory statements, contacts with victims/co-defendants, and prior criminal record.
The Appellate Division affirmed, adding that defendant submitted no certification describing what his testimony would have been, rendering his claims bald assertions insufficient to obtain a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for allegedly coercing waiver of right to testify at suppression hearing and trial	State: counsel’s decision not to present defendant was a reasonable trial strategy to avoid damaging cross-examination and impeachment	Thomas: counsel coerced him into waiving his right to testify, which deprived him of a fair trial	Denied — no prima facie Strickland showing; transcript shows defendant knowingly and repeatedly declined to testify and counsel’s choice was strategic
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the coerced-testimony claim on direct appeal	State: claim was meritless so appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to press it	Thomas: appellate counsel should have raised trial-counsel coercion on appeal	Denied — appellate counsel not ineffective because underlying claim lacked merit
Whether an evidentiary hearing on PCR was required	State: no hearing required absent prima facie showing and factual certification of proposed testimony	Thomas: hearing needed to explore coercion and what his testimony would have been	Denied — defendant offered no certification describing his prospective testimony; allegations were bald assertions
Whether suppression-hearing waiver affected outcome	State: suppression-hearing testimony would have invited damaging cross-examination and not likely to change outcome	Thomas: waiver at suppression hearing harmed his defense	Denied — strategic reasons for not testifying and record shows no prejudice established

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes Miranda warnings and voluntariness framework for custodial statements)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey’s adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (PCR allegations that are bald assertions require more factual certification to merit an evidentiary hearing)