NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0787-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KAMILA CASON, a/k/a KAREN SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
—————————————————————————————
Submitted March 30, 2017 – Decided July 6, 2017
Before Judges Lihotz and Hoffman.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No.
05-09-1315.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (David A. Snyder, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Jennifer E. Kmieciak,
Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Kamila Cason appeals from the May 27, 2015 Law
Division order denying her post-conviction relief (PCR) petition
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
Defendant shared a Jersey City first-floor apartment with her
friend, K.W. On June 4, 2005, the two began arguing over a ten-
dollar debt, and after a series of altercations, defendant lit
several fires in the apartment. Second-floor tenants, a mother
and her two sons, managed to escape the fire; however, one of the
sons died later that night from smoke inhalation.
In 2008, a jury convicted defendant of felony murder and
three counts of aggravated arson. On February 27, 2009, the trial
court sentenced defendant to forty years imprisonment, with an
eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period pursuant to the
No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendant
appealed, and we affirmed her conviction and sentence in an
unpublished opinion. State v. Cason, A-2612-09 (App. Div. Oct.
3, 2012), certif. denied, 213 N.J. 390 (2013).
On December 30, 2013, defendant filed a pro se petition for
PCR. In her petition, defendant alleged she received ineffective
assistance because: (a) "her trial attorney did not interview and
call as witnesses the owners of the building that was burnt down;"
(b) "her trial attorney did not interview and call as a witness
[S.J.], who could provide an alibi for [defendant's] whereabouts
at the time of the beginning of the fire;" and (c) "her trial
attorney did not retain a forensic arson investigator expert to
rebut the State's arson investigator."
2 A-0787-15T2
On April 30, 2015, Judge Mitzy Galis-Menendez held an
evidentiary hearing on defendant's petition. The judge first
heard the testimony of S.J., defendant's alibi witness and long-
time friend. S.J. testified she and defendant attended a barbeque
at the time of the fire. On cross-examination, however, she
acknowledged attending "most days" of defendant's trial and
knowing defendant received a forty-year sentence. Nevertheless,
she testified she never told defendant's attorney or law
enforcement she could provide an alibi for defendant. Defendant
then testified she told her trial attorney that S.J. "could verify
that I was with her at the time of the fire."
The State then presented testimony from defendant's trial
attorney, who said her trial strategy attempted to blame K.W. for
starting the fire. She explained that K.W "was being evicted[,]
[a]nd so it was my theory that she was getting back at the
landlord[,] and she was the one that set fire to the . . .
apartment." At trial, testimony from a court employee established
the landlord had filed eviction proceedings against K.W. less than
two months before the fire. Defendant's trial attorney testified
she had no recollection of defendant ever mentioning an alibi
witness or the name S.J.
On May 27, 2015, Judge Galis-Menendez entered an order denying
PCR, accompanied by a nineteen-page written opinion. The judge
3 A-0787-15T2
found "no evidence that would lead to the conclusion" that the
performance of defendant's trial attorney "fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness or that her performance materially
contributed to [defendant's] conviction."
Regarding the alleged failure to call as witnesses the owners
of the building that burned down, the judge noted that defendant
failed to provide any certifications from the owners of the
building; regardless, the judge found no evidence that "any
testimony from the owners" would "have changed the outcome of the
case." Of note, the testimony of the court employee effectively
established the pending eviction proceedings against K.W.
The judge also rejected S.J.'s testimony that she could have
provided defendant with an alibi defense, finding her testimony
not credible. Instead, the judge credited the testimony of
defendant's trial attorney that defendant never mentioned the name
S.J. as a possible alibi witness, nor was an alibi issue "raised,
discussed or contemplated after review of the discovery or after
speaking with [defendant]."
The judge further rejected defendant's claim regarding the
failure to retain a forensic arson investigation expert to rebut
the State's arson investigator. The judge found no evidence to
conclude that "a rebuttal expert would have changed the outcome
4 A-0787-15T2
of the case," especially in light of the defense contention that
defendant did not start the fire.
This appeal followed, with defendant presenting the following
argument for consideration:
THE PCR COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT
MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND MET HER BURDEN BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
Following review of the pleadings and arguments advanced, in light
of the record and applicable law, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by Judge Galis-Menendez in her cogent written
opinion. We find no basis to interfere with the order under
review.
Affirmed.
5 A-0787-15T2