STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTIONETT E. PELZER (12-11-2561, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0334-16T1

Antoinett E. Pelzer pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder for stabbing two women; crimes were witnessed and recorded.
She was sentenced to an aggregate 80-year term subject to the No Early Release Act.
Pelzer filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming her plea was not knowing and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (failure to explain plea ramifications and crime elements; failure to contest aggravating factor one).
Appointed PCR counsel filed a counseled brief raising a different ineffective-assistance claim (failure to argue mitigating factor eight: crimes unlikely to recur).
The PCR court denied relief on the counseled claim (finding no prejudice under Strickland) but did not address the pro se arguments.
The Appellate Division affirmed as to the counseled claims but remanded for the PCR court to consider the pro se issues because counsel and the court failed to address them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR court erred by denying relief without findings	State: denial proper for counseled claim; no need to remand on that ground	Pelzer: court failed to state findings and conclusions	Affirmed as to counseled claim; no remand needed for that error
Whether Pelzer entitled to evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance	State: no hearing needed because claim lacks prejudice under Strickland	Pelzer: counsel failed to argue mitigating factor eight and other plea-related matters, warranting hearing	Denied for counseled claim — claim would not have changed outcome; no hearing required
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue mitigating factor eight	State: even if argued, factor eight would not have succeeded or changed sentence	Pelzer: omission deprived her of effective assistance	Held against Pelzer — no Strickland prejudice
Whether PCR court procedurally erred by not addressing pro se claims	State: PCR court overlooked pro se claims because counsel did not present them	Pelzer: pro se claims were properly before the court and must be addressed	Remanded for PCR court to consider and decide the pro se arguments

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Preciose v. State, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (standard for evidentiary hearings on PCR claims)
State v. Webster, 187 N.J. 254 (2006) (PCR counsel must raise meritorious pro se arguments; court must consider pro se submissions)
State v. Rue, 175 N.J. 1 (2002) (duty to consider pro se PCR filings and issues)