STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EYVONNE ALEXANDERÂ (09-02-0184, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1124-15T2

Background

Defendant Eyvonne Alexander was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree kidnapping for removing a three-year-old from a store and taking the child about 5.68 miles to her home and her boyfriend’s business; she claimed mental illness/insanity as defense. The trial judge imposed concurrent 20-year terms with an 85% NERA parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal this court affirmed the conviction on the count based on substantial distance but reversed a separate count premised on removal from defendant’s own place of business and remanded to correct the judgment; the Supreme Court denied certification.
Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition, later amended with counsel, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to prepare/call mental-health witnesses, stipulations that foreclosed relevant testimony).
The PCR/trial judge (the same judge who presided at trial) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant made only bald assertions, failed to present affidavits or proffers, and did not satisfy Strickland’s deficient-performance and prejudice prongs.
Defendant appealed, raising (1) challenges to the adequacy of her jury-trial waiver, (2) a Miranda claim regarding her videotaped statement, (3) the PCR denial on ineffective-assistance grounds, and (4) ineffective assistance by PCR counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alexander)	Held
1. Did defendant receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to prepare or call mental-health witnesses?	State: Defendant failed to present competent evidence (affidavits/proffers) to show counsel’s investigation was deficient or that any failure prejudiced the defense.	Alexander: Counsel failed to prepare Dr. Hughes and call other experts, undermining the insanity/mental-disease defense.	Denied. Court affirmed PCR judge: claims were conclusory, no affidavits/proffer; counsel’s performance not shown objectively deficient and no prejudice shown under Strickland.
2. Was counsel ineffective for stipulating to facts that foreclosed mental-health testimony?	State: The stipulations were sound trial strategy; PCR record showed no prejudice from stipulations.	Alexander: Stipulations prevented presentation of evidence supporting mental-disease/defense.	Denied. Court found stipulations reasonable strategy, no prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice.
3. Was the trial-court’s denial of PCR and refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing erroneous?	State: PCR petition lacked particularized factual support required to trigger an evidentiary hearing.	Alexander: She was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to explore counsel’s alleged failings.	Denied. PCR judge properly required affidavits/proffers; defendant failed to meet Preciose prima facie standard.
4. Are new claims (jury-waiver adequacy and Miranda violation) and claim against PCR counsel reviewable here?	State: Those claims are procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal) and PCR counsel claims are generally for a later petition.	Alexander: Raised these as additional grounds and alleged PCR counsel ineffective for not raising them.	Denied as procedurally barred. Court declined to reach merits because claims were not raised below and were available earlier; PCR-counsel claims deferred to possible second petition.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Preciose v. State, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie showing required to obtain PCR evidentiary hearing)
Cummings v. State, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (bald assertions insufficient to obtain PCR relief)
Marshall v. State, 148 N.J. 89 (claims that are vague or speculative do not warrant hearings)
Nash v. State, 212 N.J. 518 (defendant bears burden by preponderance to obtain PCR relief)
Fritz v. State, 105 N.J. 42 (prejudice required, clarifies Strickland framework in NJ)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (reasonable probability standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance claims)
Afanador v. State, 151 N.J. 41 (procedural bar for claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
Robinson v. State, 200 N.J. 1 (refusal to address issues not raised below unless jurisdictional/public interest)
Arthur v. State, 184 N.J. 307 (same principle regarding review of issues not presented below)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (procedural bars and preservation rules)