State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123

Background

Marie Hess pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter for killing her police-officer husband, under a plea requiring a 30-year sentence with parole ineligibility and waiving the right to seek a lesser term.
Plea terms stated aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors; defense counsel did not present mitigating evidence or object to certain sentencing features, despite evidence of battered-woman dynamics.
Sentencing included a victim-impact video and in-court victim-impact statements, presented without defense objection, and the court stated it would follow the plea recommendation.
Hess moved for post-conviction relief (PCR) arguing ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing; PCR court denied relief, noting procedural bars and lack of Sixth Amendment violation emphasis.
Appellate Division affirmed PCR denial, applying Briggs as distinguishable and upholding the plea terms and the sentence under Warren’s framework on negotiated sentencing.
The Supreme Court granted certification to examine whether the restrictive plea terms violated Hess’s rights and whether counsel’s performance at sentencing was ineffective, remanding for proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing is barred or permissible.	Hess argues counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence violated Strickland and Briggs standards.	State contends issue is procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4 and Briggs is distinguishable; no Sixth Amendment violation.	Ineffective-assistance claim allowed; remanded for new sentencing proceedings with voided restrictive terms.
Whether the plea agreement’s restrictions on arguing for a lesser sentence violated state decisional law.	Briggs and Warren prohibit sentencing restraints that impair defense advocacy; restriction invalid.	Prosecutor’s restrictions were bargained for and appropriate given cooperation; not unlawful.	Plea restrictions void; State free to proceed to new sentencing or vacate plea.
Whether the victim-impact video and Detective Simmons’s in-court statement were unduly prejudicial and improper.	Video and testimony prejudicial; defense counsel should have objected; irreparably influenced sentencing.	Victims’ rights allow such statements; no improper prejudice if relevant and properly limited.	Video's content overstepped permissible bounds; on remand, redaction or conformity to guidelines required; Simmons's open-court reading to be reconsidered.
Whether Briggs should be retroactively applied to Hess’s case.	Briggs governs restrictive-plea issues and should apply; no retroactivity concerns here.	Briggs not controlling because facts differ and it was decided post-conviction; retroactivity unclear.	Court did not decide retroactivity but held that Briggs principles apply to void restrictive terms; remand for sentencing.
Whether defense counsel’s conduct was ineffective for failing to present Battered Women’s Syndrome evidence.	Counsel had material evidence of abuse; failure to present violated Strickland and Warren/ Briggs lineage.	Plea terms and strategic considerations limited arguments; no prejudice shown.	Conclude ineffective assistance; terms void; remand for new sentencing with opportunity to present mitigation.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Warren, 115 N.J. 433 (1989) (negotiated sentencing restricts court discretion; cannot bind court's sentencing)
State v. Briggs, 349 N.J.Super. 496 (App.Div. 2002) (restrictive plea terms deprive counsel of advocating for lesser sentence; ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopts Strickland test in New Jersey)
State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494 (2005) (mitigating factors must be considered when supported by the record)
State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283 (2010) (victim-impact evidence and gatekeeping in sentencing)
State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (2007) (admissibility of victim-impact statements and statutory framework)
State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165 (2009) (judicial discretion in sentencing (contextual citation))