State of New Jersey v. Jennie S. Cullum
This text of State of New Jersey v. Jennie S. Cullum (State of New Jersey v. Jennie S. Cullum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0512-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JENNIE S. CULLUM,
Defendant-Appellant. _________________________
Submitted November 19, 2024 – Decided January 8, 2025
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 17-07- 0923.
Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John V. Molitor, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alecia Woodard, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Jennie Cullum appeals from a September 18, 2023 order
denying her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary
hearing. She argues that she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her claims
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by plea and appellate counsel. In
rejecting defendant's PCR petition, the PCR judge, Judge Michael A. Guadagno,
J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall), issued a written opinion.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we affirm substantially for
the reasons set forth in Judge Guadagno's comprehensive opinion.
In 2017, defendant was indicted for first-degree murder of neighbor Iquan
Tyler, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3; third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful
purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a
weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). On March 15, 2019, defendant pled guilty to first-
degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1), as amended.
Defendant admitted that on December 10, 2016, she had a verbal altercation with
Tyler, after which she took a steak knife from her apartment, went to Tyler's
apartment, and stabbed him in the neck and shoulder area, causing his death.
On June 27, 2019, defendant was sentenced consistent with the plea
agreement to twenty years of imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act
(NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
A-0512-23 2 Defendant appealed her sentence. We affirmed defendant's sentence,
finding that it was not manifestly excessive or unduly punitive and did not
constitute an abuse of discretion. State of Cullum, No. A-0022-19 (App. Div.
April 1, 2020) (citing State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165 (2009); State v. Roth, 95
N.J. 334 (1984)).
On September 13, 2022, defendant filed a self-represented PCR petition,
alleging her plea and appellate counsel were ineffective. Defendant was
assigned PCR counsel, and, with the assistance of counsel, she filed a
supplemental petition and supporting brief asserting ineffective assistance of
counsel and the need for an evidentiary hearing.
On August 28, 2023, Judge Guadagno heard oral argument on defendant's
petition. Thereafter, on September 18, 2023, the judge issued an order and
written opinion denying defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points:
POINT I
THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE LAW DIVISION'S DECISION TO DENY THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE BY ADVISING THE DEFENDANT TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A CRIME THE DEFENANT DID NOT COMMIT.
A-0512-23 3 POINT II
THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE LAW DIVISION'S DECISION TO DENY THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA COUNSEL ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT SHE WOULD RECEIVE A SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS.
POINT III
THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE LAW DIVISION'S DECISION TO DENY THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR A NEW SENTENCING HEARING TO PERMIT A NEW ATTORNEY TO MAKE A MORE VIGOROUS ARGUMENT FOR CLEARLY APPLICABLE MITIGATING FACTORS.
Defendant reprised those same arguments presented before Judge
Guadagno. Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm substantially for
the reasons expressed by Judge Guadagno in his thorough written opinion. As
Judge Guadagno explained in detail, defendant failed to establish a prima facie
case of ineffective assistance of plea counsel or appellate counsel. Defendant
A-0512-23 4 did not meet her burden under the Strickland/Fritz 1 test. Judge Guadagno also
properly rejected defendant's sentencing arguments as not cognizable on a PCR
petition and further stated they lacked substantive merit.
Affirmed.
1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 US. 668 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). A-0512-23 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of New Jersey v. Jennie S. Cullum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-jersey-v-jennie-s-cullum-njsuperctappdiv-2025.