State v. Steele

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: A-3358-23
• Decision Date: 23 December 2025
• Citation: State v. Steele, A-3358-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Dec 23, 2025)
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCEL J. STEELE, Defendant-Appellant.

1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCEL J. STEELE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-3358-23

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

December 23, 2025

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.

Submitted November 6, 2025

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Gloucester County, Indictment No. 19-02-0116.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Andrew B. Johns, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Michael Mellon, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Jablonski.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Marcel Steele appeals from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. The matter involves defendant's fatal shooting of one victim and aggravated assault of another as both victims were fleeing the scene after attempting an armed robbery at defendant's home. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant plead guilty to second-degree manslaughter, second-degree aggravated assault, and third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

Defendant's PCR petition alleged: (1) counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by demanding additional fees if he proceeded to trial (2) counsel failed to investigate or develop a self-defense theory; (3) counsel failed to adequately advocate for mitigating factors at sentencing; and (4) counsel failed to argue for concurrent sentences at sentencing. Finding no basis for the requested relief, we affirm.

First, counsel's discussion of further payment merely explained defendant's options and did not amount to coercion. Defendant had the right to avail himself of appointed counsel if he could no longer afford private counsel, and he admitted there was no undue influence while under oath during the plea colloquy. Counsel also reasonably declined to pursue self-defense because the facts demonstrated deadly force was not necessary, rendering the defense meritless. Counsel also presented a thorough argument for the application of mitigating factors when he submitted a detailed memorandum to the sentencing court. Finally, the plea agreement explicitly stated the sentences were to run consecutively, and crimes involving multiple victims who suffer death or serious bodily injury, as here, ordinarily merit the imposition of consecutive sentences.

I.

On November 28, 2018, defendant possessed approximately one pound of marijuana at his residence in Westville, New Jersey. Some of the marijuana was for personal use and some was intended for distribution. Jodeci Robinson, who had previously bought marijuana from defendant and owed him $200, arranged to come to the house to repay the debt and purchase more marijuana. To facilitate their agreement, defendant sent Robinson a picture of the marijuana in his possession. Before the arranged meeting with defendant, Robinson and his friend, Saliim Bey, whom defendant did not know, exchanged Facebook messages where they potentially discussed robbing defendant.

Robinson and Bey arrived at defendant's residence. Defendant's mother also lived at the address and was present during these events. Robinson and Bey argued with defendant about the outstanding debt. During the altercation, Bey produced a handgun and fired a shot into the floor close to where defendant stood. Bey then backed out of the room while pointing the gun at defendant, shut the door with defendant in the room, and fled.

Defendant then retrieved a 9-millimeter handgun he kept in the home for protection.^[1] Defendant fired at both Robinson and Bey as they fled toward the door and continued to fire as they retreated. Defendant then followed them outside and, while shooting from the porch, shot Robinson-who was unarmed-in the back as he was in the front yard attempting to flee. A witness reported hearing the gunshots from his room. He looked out of his window and observed defendant "fire a handgun several times from the porch . . . towards an unknown male in front of the residence. The victim [was] scream[ing], 'STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP' as [defendant] continued to shoot at the victim." The record does not indicate approximately how far Robinson was from defendant at the time Robinson was shot; it reflects only that defendant was on the porch and he was in the front yard. Robinson died shortly thereafter because of his injuries.

After shooting Robinson, defendant pursued Bey. As Bey ran down the street, defendant chased him and continued to fire at him in the street, striking Bey in the arm as he fled. Following the shooting, defendant and his mother attempted to hide a significant quantity of marijuana outside the house. They subsequently entered an SUV in an apparent attempt to flee; however, police intervened and arrested both at the scene.

On February 13, 2019, a Gloucester County grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with the following offenses: (1) count one, first-degree murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(2); (2) count two, first-degree attempted murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(2); (3) count three, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1); (4) count four, second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1); (5) count five, fourth-degree possession of marijuana in an amount greater than 50 grams, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3); (6) count six, third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(11); (7) count seven, second-degree possession of a firearm while committing a controlled dangerous substance offense, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a); (8) count eight, third-degree endangering an injured victim, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a); and (9) count nine, fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).

On June 21, 2019, defendant plead guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to amended count one, second-degree manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1); amended count two, second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); and count six, third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(11). The remaining charges were to be dismissed and the State agreed to recommend a sentence of eight years on amended count one, three years on amended count two, with the original first-degree count to be sentenced in the third-degree range, and three years on count six, all to run consecutively. The trial court found the plea was entered knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily, and further determined defendant provided sufficient factual basis for each count.

The trial court sentenced defendant, consistent with the plea agreement, to an aggregate term of fourteen years' incarceration. Specifically, defendant was sentenced to eight years on amended count one for killing Robinson, subject to 85% parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and a three-year mandatory parole term; three years on amended count two for shooting Bey, downgraded to a third-degree offense pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2), also subject to NERA; and three years on count six. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.

Defendant appealed his sentence pursuant to Rule 2:9-11. We affirmed, noting "the sentence is not manifestly excessive or unduly punitive and does not constitute an abuse of discretion." State v. Steele, No. A-1901-19 (App. Div. Oct. 28, 2020).

Defendant then filed a petition for PCR, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After being assigned counsel, defendant filed an amended petition, which the court denied without an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal followed.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT ONE

MR. STEELE IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PRETRIAL BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND FAILING TO CONSIDER AND DEVELOP A SELF DEFENSE CASE, THEREBY CAUSING HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY WHEN HE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED TO TRIAL OR HAVE RECEIVED A BETTER PLEA OFFER.

POINT TWO

MR. STEELE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, A RESENTENCING, OR FINDINGS BY THE PCR COURT ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE AT SENTENCING BY FAILING TO ADVOCATE

ADEQUATELY FOR MITIGATING FACTORS AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES.

We reject these contentions and affirm.

II.

In State v. Hernandez-Peralta, our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed our role in reviewing PCR petitions: "Our review of a PCR court's factual findings is 'necessarily deferential.' However, we review a PCR court's legal conclusions de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004)." 261 N.J. 231, 246 (2025) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013)).

That de novo review extends to whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary to rule on the merits of a PCR petition as, in the absence of PCR, a defendant may argue an evidentiary hearing is warranted to develop the factual record in connection with an ineffective-assistance of counsel claim. See State v Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354-55 (2013). However, the PCR court should grant an evidentiary hearing only where: (1) a defendant is able to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2)...