State v. Jackson
185 A.3d 262
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2018Background
- In 1999 Shavonne Young was shot dead; defendant Allaquan Jackson initially confessed, then at trial recanted and claimed his brother committed the shooting with witness Malika Williams in the car. Williams had given a written exculpatory statement but later orally recanted.
- Trial counsel provided Williams’s written statement to the prosecutor and informed the prosecutor that Williams later said the statement was untrue; Williams was subpoenaed but did not testify at trial.
- Jackson was convicted of multiple offenses and sentenced to life with 30 years parole ineligibility; direct appeal and first PCR (post-conviction relief) were denied by 2009.
- Jackson filed a second PCR in 2015 alleging first PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to claim trial counsel was ineffective in disclosing Williams’s oral recantation to the prosecutor (and related claims). The PCR court dismissed the second petition as untimely.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the second PCR was time-barred under the amended Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) and that court rules prohibiting enlargement/relaxation of those time limits applied to Jackson’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCR | Jackson: second PCR is permissible because it alleges ineffective assistance by first PCR counsel; should fit within Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(C) | State: second PCR was filed more than one year after first PCR denial and thus untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) | Court: Dismissed second PCR as untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2); not filed within one-year window |
| Relaxation of time limits under Rule 1:1-2 | Jackson: Rule 1:1-2 should permit relaxation given alleged grossly deficient first PCR counsel | State: Rule 1:1-2 cannot relax Rule 3:22-12 after Supreme Court amendments | Court: Rule 1:1-2 and enlargements prohibited by Rule 1:3-4 and Rule 3:22-12 amendments; time limits cannot be relaxed |
| Applicability/retroactivity of 2009–2010 rule amendments | Jackson: amendments should not preclude his second PCR given earlier proceedings | State: Amendments apply to petitions filed after their effective dates; no vested right to file 14 years late | Court: Amendments apply; procedural rules apply to pending actions absent vested-rights interference; Jackson had no vested right to file late petition |
| Merits of ineffective assistance / ethical disclosure claims | Jackson: trial counsel breached duties by disclosing Williams’s recantation and failing to call her; first PCR counsel ineffective for not raising this | State: Even if disclosure implicated ethics, merits not reached because petition is untimely | Court: Did not reach merits; declined to decide whether disclosure violated RPC or constituted ineffectiveness because of procedural dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Aujero v. Cirelli, 110 N.J. 566 (1988) (time limitations in PCR rules cannot be enlarged)
- McKenney ex rel. McKenney v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 359 (2001) (attorney’s duty to disclose when a witness will deviate from prior testimony)
- State v. Milne, 178 N.J. 486 (2004) (long delays in filing PCR petitions are disfavored; burden increases with delay)
- State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (Rule 1:1-2 requires an injustice standard to relax time limits)
- In re Seelig, 180 N.J. 234 (2004) (defense zeal must remain within ethical and legal bounds)