NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________
No. 18-1867 ____________
OMAR SAUNDERS, Appellant v.
ADMINISTRATOR NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON; ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-15-cv-02683) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle ____________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 3, 2020
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 4, 2020)
OPINION* ____________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Omar Saunders appeals a District Court order denying his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to interview and call two witnesses. Because the state courts that first rejected
Saunders’s claim did not apply federal law unreasonably, we will affirm.
I
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, determined the following
facts, see State v. Saunders, 2008 WL 538970, at *1–*4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
(per curiam).1
On May 31, 2002, four men—Omar Saunders, Donnell Jakes, Jose Alvarez, and
Angelo Lopez—rode in Alvarez’s white car from Camden to a club in Philadelphia. At
the club, Jakes suggested Saunders could not hold his liquor, and the two argued. After
leaving, they argued about who should drive. Saunders drove and dropped Lopez off.
Saunders then stopped near the intersection of Pierce and North 26th Streets. He exited
the car and walked to a nearby corner, while Alvarez and Jakes walked to a grassy area to
urinate. Alvarez saw Saunders holding a bottle of Corona beer. A few minutes later,
Saunders ran toward Alvarez and gave him the car keys.
1 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires us to presume these facts are correct because Saunders has not attempted to rebut them by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
2 Saunders continued running toward Jakes, hugged him, and then began walking
back toward Alvarez. Suddenly, Saunders turned around, removed a gun from his pocket,
and shot Jakes twice in the head at point-blank range. Jakes fell to his knees, and
Saunders fired one more shot. The shooting occurred somewhere between 3:00 and 3:30
a.m. Saunders ran home, while Alvarez got into his car and circled the area for twenty to
thirty minutes to see if Jakes was getting help. Alvarez later said he avoided the police
because he was on parole. An investigator found a shell casing near Jakes’s body and a
Corona beer bottle across the street. No murder weapon was found.
Later that day, Saunders threatened Alvarez not to talk to anyone about the
homicide. But Alvarez soon reported the homicide to the prosecutor’s office and agreed
to record a phone conversation with Saunders. In that conversation, Alvarez accused
Saunders of “pop[ping] that boy,” but Saunders denied it. Saunders, 2008 WL 538970, at
*2. Later, Alvarez said, “You wild out on the kid you know what I mean?” Id. Saunders
replied, “True [indeed] now listen.” Id. Finally, Alvarez asked Saunders whether he
disposed of the gun, to which Saunders replied, “Hell yeah!” Id. Throughout the
conversation, Saunders suggested that he and Alvarez meet in person and that they
coordinate their stories.
When investigators talked to Saunders several months later, he blurted out, “I
don’t own a gun now and I’ve never owned a gun.” Id. at *4. He continued, “Donnell and
3 me . . . had several arguments and we made peace.” Id. Saunders claimed he left Camden
because Jakes’s family had “kicked [his] door in.” Id.
II
At Saunders’s trial for first-degree murder and related offenses, Alvarez testified
consistent with the facts just described. Lopez testified that when Saunders and Jakes
were arguing, Saunders said to Jakes, “I’m letting you live right now. I’ll kill you.” Id. at
*3. Lopez also said Saunders refused to make peace with Jakes. The State’s other
witnesses included three people who lived near the scene of the shooting. David
Monserrate testified that at about 3:00 a.m., he heard four gunshots, saw Jakes on the
ground, and saw a man matching Saunders’s description running away. Paul Rodriguez
heard three gunshots at about 3:30 a.m. and saw a person drive away in a white car. And
Aida Rodriguez saw the car pass the crime scene three times with its headlights off.
In his defense, Saunders sought to establish an alibi. His father Alphonso Harris
testified that, on the morning of the homicide, Saunders came home around 3:00 a.m. and
ate a snack. Because Saunders was intoxicated, Harris helped Saunders to bed. Harris
also testified that Saunders maintained his innocence in private. But Harris denied that
anyone from Jakes’s family had kicked his door in or otherwise threatened him. Saunders
also suggested that Alvarez killed Jakes. For example, Saunders’s counsel asked Alvarez
whether he had fought with Jakes before the homicide, but Alvarez said no.
4 The jury found Saunders guilty, and the court sentenced him to thirty-five years’
imprisonment, with an 85 percent parole disqualifier. The Appellate Division affirmed,
see id. at *17, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification, see State v.
Saunders, 957 A.2d 1170 (N.J. 2008) (table).
Saunders sought post-conviction relief (PCR) in state court. He claimed his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call his relatives Malcolm Rease and
Stephen Chalk, who would have testified that Alvarez tried to fight Jakes shortly before
the murder.
The PCR court held an evidentiary hearing. Saunders testified that he asked his
counsel to speak with Rease and Chalk about the fight between Alvarez and Jakes, but his
counsel did not do so because Saunders could not pay his full retainer.
Saunders’s counsel testified that he generally hires an investigator to speak with
witnesses to avoid becoming a witness in his own cases. Still, he spoke with Arthur
Rease (Malcolm’s brother), Harris, and Harris’s girlfriend, thinking their testimony
would help establish Saunders’s alibi. He could not recall whether Saunders asked that he
speak with Malcolm Rease or Chalk. But he admitted that, if Saunders did ask, he did not
interview them “because primarily Mr. Saunders didn’t have the ability to pay for an
investigator.” App. 94. He also doubted the Public Defender’s Office would have helped
5 Saunders to pay. In any event, he thought the fight between Alvarez and Jakes was
irrelevant to Saunders’s alibi defense.
The PCR court denied Saunders’s petition. Applying Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984), it held Saunders’s counsel performed adequately because he “made
strategic judgments . . . given [his] limited funds” and decided testimony about the fight
was not worth presenting. Supp. App. 47. The court also held that Saunders could not
show prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________
No. 18-1867 ____________
OMAR SAUNDERS, Appellant v.
ADMINISTRATOR NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON; ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-15-cv-02683) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle ____________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 3, 2020
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 4, 2020)
OPINION* ____________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Omar Saunders appeals a District Court order denying his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to interview and call two witnesses. Because the state courts that first rejected
Saunders’s claim did not apply federal law unreasonably, we will affirm.
I
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, determined the following
facts, see State v. Saunders, 2008 WL 538970, at *1–*4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
(per curiam).1
On May 31, 2002, four men—Omar Saunders, Donnell Jakes, Jose Alvarez, and
Angelo Lopez—rode in Alvarez’s white car from Camden to a club in Philadelphia. At
the club, Jakes suggested Saunders could not hold his liquor, and the two argued. After
leaving, they argued about who should drive. Saunders drove and dropped Lopez off.
Saunders then stopped near the intersection of Pierce and North 26th Streets. He exited
the car and walked to a nearby corner, while Alvarez and Jakes walked to a grassy area to
urinate. Alvarez saw Saunders holding a bottle of Corona beer. A few minutes later,
Saunders ran toward Alvarez and gave him the car keys.
1 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires us to presume these facts are correct because Saunders has not attempted to rebut them by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
2 Saunders continued running toward Jakes, hugged him, and then began walking
back toward Alvarez. Suddenly, Saunders turned around, removed a gun from his pocket,
and shot Jakes twice in the head at point-blank range. Jakes fell to his knees, and
Saunders fired one more shot. The shooting occurred somewhere between 3:00 and 3:30
a.m. Saunders ran home, while Alvarez got into his car and circled the area for twenty to
thirty minutes to see if Jakes was getting help. Alvarez later said he avoided the police
because he was on parole. An investigator found a shell casing near Jakes’s body and a
Corona beer bottle across the street. No murder weapon was found.
Later that day, Saunders threatened Alvarez not to talk to anyone about the
homicide. But Alvarez soon reported the homicide to the prosecutor’s office and agreed
to record a phone conversation with Saunders. In that conversation, Alvarez accused
Saunders of “pop[ping] that boy,” but Saunders denied it. Saunders, 2008 WL 538970, at
*2. Later, Alvarez said, “You wild out on the kid you know what I mean?” Id. Saunders
replied, “True [indeed] now listen.” Id. Finally, Alvarez asked Saunders whether he
disposed of the gun, to which Saunders replied, “Hell yeah!” Id. Throughout the
conversation, Saunders suggested that he and Alvarez meet in person and that they
coordinate their stories.
When investigators talked to Saunders several months later, he blurted out, “I
don’t own a gun now and I’ve never owned a gun.” Id. at *4. He continued, “Donnell and
3 me . . . had several arguments and we made peace.” Id. Saunders claimed he left Camden
because Jakes’s family had “kicked [his] door in.” Id.
II
At Saunders’s trial for first-degree murder and related offenses, Alvarez testified
consistent with the facts just described. Lopez testified that when Saunders and Jakes
were arguing, Saunders said to Jakes, “I’m letting you live right now. I’ll kill you.” Id. at
*3. Lopez also said Saunders refused to make peace with Jakes. The State’s other
witnesses included three people who lived near the scene of the shooting. David
Monserrate testified that at about 3:00 a.m., he heard four gunshots, saw Jakes on the
ground, and saw a man matching Saunders’s description running away. Paul Rodriguez
heard three gunshots at about 3:30 a.m. and saw a person drive away in a white car. And
Aida Rodriguez saw the car pass the crime scene three times with its headlights off.
In his defense, Saunders sought to establish an alibi. His father Alphonso Harris
testified that, on the morning of the homicide, Saunders came home around 3:00 a.m. and
ate a snack. Because Saunders was intoxicated, Harris helped Saunders to bed. Harris
also testified that Saunders maintained his innocence in private. But Harris denied that
anyone from Jakes’s family had kicked his door in or otherwise threatened him. Saunders
also suggested that Alvarez killed Jakes. For example, Saunders’s counsel asked Alvarez
whether he had fought with Jakes before the homicide, but Alvarez said no.
4 The jury found Saunders guilty, and the court sentenced him to thirty-five years’
imprisonment, with an 85 percent parole disqualifier. The Appellate Division affirmed,
see id. at *17, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification, see State v.
Saunders, 957 A.2d 1170 (N.J. 2008) (table).
Saunders sought post-conviction relief (PCR) in state court. He claimed his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call his relatives Malcolm Rease and
Stephen Chalk, who would have testified that Alvarez tried to fight Jakes shortly before
the murder.
The PCR court held an evidentiary hearing. Saunders testified that he asked his
counsel to speak with Rease and Chalk about the fight between Alvarez and Jakes, but his
counsel did not do so because Saunders could not pay his full retainer.
Saunders’s counsel testified that he generally hires an investigator to speak with
witnesses to avoid becoming a witness in his own cases. Still, he spoke with Arthur
Rease (Malcolm’s brother), Harris, and Harris’s girlfriend, thinking their testimony
would help establish Saunders’s alibi. He could not recall whether Saunders asked that he
speak with Malcolm Rease or Chalk. But he admitted that, if Saunders did ask, he did not
interview them “because primarily Mr. Saunders didn’t have the ability to pay for an
investigator.” App. 94. He also doubted the Public Defender’s Office would have helped
5 Saunders to pay. In any event, he thought the fight between Alvarez and Jakes was
irrelevant to Saunders’s alibi defense.
The PCR court denied Saunders’s petition. Applying Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984), it held Saunders’s counsel performed adequately because he “made
strategic judgments . . . given [his] limited funds” and decided testimony about the fight
was not worth presenting. Supp. App. 47. The court also held that Saunders could not
show prejudice. It credited counsel’s testimony that “much of the information that Rease
and Chalk could provide was merely ‘street chatter.’” Supp. App. 48. It also noted that
neither witness was available for cross-examination at the evidentiary hearing or claimed
to know who murdered Jakes. Finally, it characterized the evidence of Saunders’s guilt as
“overwhelming.” App. 51 n.3.
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Saunders’s petition “substantially
for the reasons set forth by [the PCR court].” Saunders, 2014 WL 1686841 at *2 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014). The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification. State v.
Saunders, 104 A.3d 1077 (N.J. 2015) (table).
Saunders petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Saunders v. D’Illio, 2018 WL
1251629 (D.N.J. 2018). The District Court denied his petition, finding it “clear that the
PCR court reasonably applied federal law.” See id. at *14.
6 We granted Saunders a certificate of appealability to review his ineffectiveness
claim as it relates to Malcolm Rease and Stephen Chalk.
III2
Under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review, we cannot grant Saunders’s
petition unless the state court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Put differently, a state prisoner must show that
the state court’s ruling was “so lacking in justification that there was an error well
understood.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the PCR court did not apply
Strickland unreasonably when it held that Saunders could not show prejudice. A
petitioner must show a reasonable probability of a different result but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The court concluded that even if
the jury had heard from Rease and Chalk, the result of Saunders’s trial probably would
not have changed. Its conclusion was not “lacking in justification.” Harrington, 562 U.S.
at 103. It explained that neither Rease nor Chalk could contradict Alvarez’s eyewitness
testimony. It also characterized the evidence of Saunders’s guilt as “overwhelming.” In
2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 2254(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a).
7 particular, the recorded phone call with Alvarez, Saunders’s statements to police, Lopez’s
testimony, the three eyewitness accounts, and Saunders’s flight from Camden all
inculpated Saunders. So the state court’s finding of no Strickland prejudice was not
unreasonable.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying
Saunders’s petition.