STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY J. LADD(11-06-1019, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1215-15T2

In October 2011 Ladd pled guilty to first-degree robbery for entering a pharmacy, displaying a knife, taking Oxycodone, and being detained on surveillance; he was sentenced in December 2011 to 12 years subject to the No Early Release Act.
Ladd did not file a direct appeal and later filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in September 2014 alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel.
Ladd asserted he was experiencing withdrawal from prescribed medication at the time of the offense and claimed counsel failed to pursue diminished capacity or intoxication defenses during plea bargaining.
He also argued counsel failed to properly advocate for mitigating factors (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(1) and (b)(4)) at sentencing, which he said would have reduced his sentence.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advance a diminished-capacity defense	State: Counsel’s performance was not deficient; no evidence of diminished capacity was presented	Ladd: Counsel should have argued diminished capacity/withdrawal affected mens rea during the crime	Denied — no evidence of a mental disease or defect or intoxication at the time; diminished-capacity defense not established
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue intoxication (drug-induced) at plea/sentencing	State: No claim of intoxication at the time; withdrawal, not intoxication, was alleged	Ladd: Counsel should have raised intoxication or related incapacity to negate intent	Denied — intoxication defense requires extreme prostration of faculties; voluntary intoxication not shown and withdrawal is not intoxication under statute
Whether counsel failed to advocate mitigating factors (b)(1) and (b)(4) at sentencing	State: Counsel did, in fact, argue mitigating factors including addiction and background	Ladd: Counsel insufficiently presented reasons why those mitigating factors applied, causing prejudice	Denied — record shows plea counsel argued both factors; no prima facie showing of prejudice to warrant evidentiary hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopts Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (diminished-capacity defense requires mental disease or defect impairing intent formation)
State v. Reyes, 140 N.J. 344 (requires connection between mental disease/defect and ability to form requisite mental state)
State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42 (voluntary intoxication defense requires prostration of faculties)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (standard for granting PCR evidentiary hearing)
State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (related to plea-withdrawal and prejudice analysis)

Affirmed.