STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THEODORE G. HARRIS(06-11-2591, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4230-14T1

Theodore G. Harris was convicted by a jury of murder (shooting death of his girlfriend's son), two attempted murders (shooting his girlfriend and a bystander), and pointing a firearm at an officer; he was sentenced to an aggregate custodial term of 60 years with lengthy parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal Harris raised multiple claims including prosecutorial misconduct (cross-examination and summation), evidentiary rulings (admission of his statements and a VHS tape), search/consent issues, and sentencing; this Court affirmed convictions and remanded only for resentencing.
Harris filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, focusing primarily on counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor’s summation and alleged errors in the jury instruction on self-defense.
The PCR court (Judge Mullaney) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing and issued a detailed 22-page rider explaining that many claims were procedurally barred or lacked factual support to establish a prima facie case under Rule 3:22-10(b).
On appeal from the PCR denial Harris argued the PCR court failed to address certain alleged failures of trial counsel and that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the self-defense instruction; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial summation and cross-examination	State: prior adjudication on the merits forecloses relitigation; prosecutor’s comments were proper to highlight inconsistencies	Harris: trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s improper summation and cross-examination that undermined his self-defense claim	Held: Claims barred by Rule 3:22-5 as previously litigated on direct appeal; no merit warranting discussion
Admission of statements / rebuttal evidence	State: previously litigated and rejected on direct appeal	Harris: counsel ineffective for not objecting to admission/use of his statements (VHS/transcript) in rebuttal	Held: Procedurally barred and/or lack of prima facie showing of ineffectiveness
Jury instruction on self-defense	State: instructions were proper; no factual showing that counsel’s failure to object was prejudicial	Harris: counsel ineffective for not objecting that jury was not told State must disprove self-defense akin to passion/provocation element	Held: Claim lacked factual allegations to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance; rejected
Incorporation of other PCR arguments	State: arguments inadequately presented and lack merit	Harris: incorporates all arguments from PCR counsel as basis for relief	Held: Procedurally deficient (no authority/analysis) and substantively without sufficient merit; rejected

State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464 (1997) (prior adjudication on the merits bars relitigation in PCR proceedings)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (prima facie PCR claim requires factual allegations showing reasonable likelihood of success)
State v. White, 260 N.J. Super. 531 (App. Div. 1992) (issues decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in later proceedings)
State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294 (App. Div. 1977) (party must support positions with legal authority; court will not make arguments for a party)