NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3064-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHAWN SOUTHERLAND,
a/k/a KEITH DAVIS, and
SHAWN OBEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued November 30, 2021 – Decided February 16, 2022
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 09-10-1750.
Shawn Southerland, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant Prosecutor, argued
the cause for respondent (Esther Suarez, Hudson
County Prosecutor, attorney; Stephanie Davis Elson, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Shawn Southerland appeals from the September 3, 2019 denial
of his second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), and from the March 12,
2020 denial of his motions for reconsideration and for a new trial. We affirm.
The facts leading to defendant's conviction are set forth in our earlier
opinions affirming defendant's conviction and sentence, State v. Southerland
(Southerland I), No. A-4663-11 (App. Div. Jan. 30, 2015) (slip op. at 6-14, 29),
and affirming the denial of his first PCR petition, State v. Southerland
(Southerland II), No. A-3299-15 (App. Div. Mar. 19, 2018) (slip op. at 1), and
need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that after unsuccessfully opposing
the State's motion at trial to admit into evidence a police officer's testimony
about a conversation he overheard between defendant and the victim's brother,
defendant was convicted after a bench trial of committing murder, N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a), and hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1). Defendant's
motion for a new trial was denied, and the sentencing court imposed an
aggregate sentence of thirty years' imprisonment subject to a No Early Release
Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, parole disqualifier.
As part of our description of the issues defendant raised on direct appeal
from his conviction, we observed the following:
In Points III, IV, and V, defendant argues the judge
erred by granting the State's motion to admit the
2 A-3064-19
statements he made to [the victim's brother] during their
telephone conversation into evidence. Defendant
asserts that [the police o]fficer . . . violated the New
Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act,
N.J.S.A. 2A:156-1 to -34 (the Wiretap Act), by
listening to the telephone call, and that the officer's
lengthy presence in [the victim's] apartment constituted
an unlawful search. Defendant contends the
prosecutor's subsequent use of the statements "tainted"
the grand jury proceedings and the trial and, therefore,
he should be granted a new trial.
[Southerland I, slip op. at 20.]
We explained in detail our reasons for rejecting defendant's contentions
as to these issues. Id. at 20-24. After we affirmed defendant's conviction and
sentence, the Supreme Court denied his petition for certification. State v.
Southerland, 221 N.J. 566 (2015).
On June 1, 2015, defendant filed his first PCR petition, which was denied
by Judge Sheila A. Venable. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed substantially
for the reasons expressed by Judge Venable. Southerland II, slip op. at 11. In
his first PCR petition, defendant claimed, among other issues, ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the issue of the admission of
the officer's testimony regarding the overheard phone call. Pertinent to the
present appeal, in our opinion affirming the denial of PCR, we described Judge
3 A-3064-19
Venable's response to the issues raised by defendant's first petition by stating
the following:
Last, Judge Venable found that defendant's argument
that appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed
to argue the admissibility of statements defendant made
on the phone when a police officer was present on the
other line was meritless. The judge observed that
appellate counsel explained to defendant that he was
"reluctant to raise [the] issue on direct appeal as [he]
believe[d], strategically, that it would detract from the
issues that [he] intend[ed] to raise[.]" Further,
defendant raised the issue himself in a pro se
supplemental appellate brief, and we found his
argument to be meritless.
[Southerland II, slip op. at 7-8 (alterations in original).]
The Supreme Court later denied defendant's petition for certification on
October 23, 2018. State v. Southerland, 235 N.J. 351 (2018).
Defendant then filed a petition for habeas corpus with the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, which was denied on March 26,
2019, based on its conclusion, like ours, that there was no Fourth Amendment
violation in the officer's listening to the conversation with the victim's brother's
consent. Southerland v. Nogan, No. 18-9469 (JLL), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
51572, at *1, *16-19 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2019). On October 4, 2019, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied his application for a
4 A-3064-19
Certificate of Appealability. Southerland v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No.
19-1784, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 40346, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2019).
On July 29, 2019, defendant filed his second PCR petition, which was
denied on September 3, 2019. In his second PCR petition, defendant once again
claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the issue
of the admission of the officer's testimony regarding the overheard phone call
on direct appeal. Judge Venable denied the petition because the claim against
appellate counsel was not cognizable under Rule 3:22-4(b)(2), which restricts
the issues that can be raised in a second PCR petition, and because defendant
raised arguments that were disposed of on direct appeal and in his first PCR
petition.
On September 23, 2019, defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and, four
days later, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his second PCR
petition. On February 27, 2020, defendant filed a motion for evidentiary
hearing.
On March 12, 2020, Judge Venable issued a letter opinion setting forth
her reasons for denying reconsideration of the order denying defendant's second
petition for PCR and for denying an evidentiary hearing, reiterating her original
reasons for the denial of his second PCR petition. The judge also denied
5 A-3064-19
defendant's motion for a new trial, relying on the same reasons for our rejection
of defendant's earlier appeals and for her denial of his first petition, concluding
again that the issue of the admission of the officer's testimony regarding the
overheard phone call had already been fully addressed and adjudicated and for
that reason it was not "in the interest of justice" to order a new trial. This appeal
followed.
On appeal defendant argues the following points:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S SECOND PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF: CONCERNING HIS CLAIM
THAT HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL
FOR COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO APPEAL
SUPPRESSIBLE EVIDENCE BECAUSE ABSENT
EXCLUDABLE EVI[D]ENCE THE RESULT OF THE
VERDICT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT;
AND, DEFENDANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A
NEW TRIAL. (THE PCR COURT BARRED
DEFENDANT UNDER [RULE] 3:22-5 ON THE
FIRST PCR PETITION ON THE ISSUE)[.]
POINT II
DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN
THE OFFICER ENTERED DEFENDANT'S HOME
WITHOUT A WARRANT AND SET UP
TELEPHONE SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT PRIOR
APPROVAL THEN [REQUESTED] THAT
TELEPHONE BE PLACED ON SPEAKER
6 A-3064-19
THEREBY VIOLATING DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO
PRIVACY AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
OF N.J.S.A. 2A:156[]A[-]4(c): WARRANTING
SUPPRESSION OF THE ALLEGED ORAL
STATEMENTS AND ITS FRUIT AND NEW TRIAL
(UNRESOL[V]ED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION
ON DIRECT APPEAL).
POINT III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER
BRADY ITS PROGENY AND [RULE] 3:13-3
BECAUSE THE STATE WITHHELD, SUPPRESSED
AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL
IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE WHICH AFFECTED
THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL.
POINT IV
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT DUE
PROCESS IN POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS
IN FAILING TO ADDRESS THE [SIC]
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY IN RELATION TO HIS PETITION FOR
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL IN THAT COURT.
[(Third alteration in original).]
We are not persuaded by any of defendant's contentions, which we
conclude are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge
Venable in her written decisions that accompanied the challenged orders. We
7 A-3064-19
add only that, contrary to defendant's assertion on appeal that we did not
conclusively decide the "central issue raised," there should be no doubt now that
the issue of the admission of the officer's testimony regarding the overheard
phone call was previously decided by this court.
Affirmed.
8 A-3064-19