Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Allen

December 29, 2009


On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 99-09-2948.

Per curiam.


Submitted: December 9, 2009

Before Judges Cuff and C.L. Miniman.

Defendant Shahid Allen appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He is serving an aggregate term of sixty years with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility following his conviction of first degree murder, third degree possession of a handgun without a permit, and second degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. We affirm.

The charges arise from the shooting death of Sabir Kendrick on July 2, 1999, in the area of the Felix Fuld Housing Project in Newark. According to the witnesses presented by the State, defendant and the victim argued "about some drugs, a drug transaction." One witness overheard defendant ask the victim "where's my money." When the victim responded that he left the money at a woman's house, the witness heard defendant state to the victim he would "blow [the victim's] brains... blow [the victim] away" when he returned.

Later that evening, occupants of an apartment in the housing project heard an argument between two men outside the kitchen window about ten minutes prior to a shooting. The argument was about money. A few minutes later, these witnesses heard six or seven gun shots. One of the occupants of the apartment observed defendant shoot a gun and then jump into a nearby brown Maxima. This witness ran outside and discovered that Sabir Kendrick had been shot. The four occupants of the apartment on that night readily admitted that they were drinking some beer and smoking marijuana at the time they overheard the initial argument.

The gun shots were also heard by two Newark police officers. They responded immediately to the scene and encountered the victim. Although he had been shot multiple times, he was still alive and told one of the officers, "Alpo had shot me," and the dispute was over money. Alpo is not defendant, but the victim told another officer who responded to the scene that Alpo was accompanied by Black. The State submitted testimony that defendant was known as Black. One of the occupants of the apartment, who had overheard the initial argument, identified defendant through a photo array as the person arguing with the victim earlier in the day. Another occupant of the apartment identified defendant through a photo array and in court as the shooter.

In an unreported opinion, we affirmed the conviction. State v. Allen, No. A-3336-00 (App. Div. Nov. 27, 2002). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification. State v. Allen, 177 N.J. 223 (2003). Defendant asserts he filed a petition for PCR in October 2003. An amended petition was filed on March 29, 2004. Due to difficulties encountered in obtaining the file, the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

When the petition was restored, defendant argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because the trial judge failed to provide a curative instruction following the re-cross-examination of a witness who made an ambiguous statement about the involvement of the victim and defendant in drug transactions. Defendant also contended that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. In addition, he insisted that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not pursue an adjournment and did not request an instruction about the impairment of the witnesses. Finally, defendant argued that the sentence was excessive and based on factors not found by the jury. Defendant filed three pro se briefs in support of his petition. He requested an evidentiary hearing, argued that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, and contended that violations of evidence rules caused an "adverse affect" on the grand jury decision.

Judge Donald Goldman denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. In his comprehensive June 30, 2008 opinion, the judge held that the primary focus of the petition, the ambiguous reference by a witness to drug transactions during re-cross-examination, was also a primary argument on appeal and had been resolved against him. In addition, the sentencing argument was presented and resolved on direct appeal.

Therefore, both issues were barred by Rule 3:22-5, which precludes relitigation of issues decided on direct appeal.

Judge Goldman also found that defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel on the grand jury issue presented by him. As to the other instances of ineffective assistance of counsel presented by defendant, the judge addressed these claims as follows:

Petitioner's primary complaint on the PCR is his contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to various failings of trial counsel. Specifically, in his pro se argument, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel erred by not calling the supposed alibi witnesses Abdul Jackson and Malik Crenshaw. The fact is that Abdul Jackson was present the first day of jury selection, interviewed by both the State and defense investigators but never called as a witness. Petitioner utterly fails to submit any information to show that Jackson and Crenshaw were ready, willing, and able to provide an alibi at the time of trial. In fact, he is unable to show that even now [eight] years later that they are so willing. He also says that there might have been witnesses or a security camera tape that might have shown him at a skating rink, at an Exxon gas station, or at a White Castle restaurant at a crucial time; however, he has not provided statements of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.