Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State of New Jersey v. Jada M. McClain

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-1124-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (644)

• PDF

Combined 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1124-24

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JADA M. MCCLAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

---

Submitted February 3, 2026 – Decided March 18, 2026

Before Judges Gilson and Perez Friscia.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Accusation No. 20-01-
0035.

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

Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Monica do Outeiro, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
Defendant Jada McClain appeals from a November 22, 2024 order

denying her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). She contends that she was

entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her claims that her trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to investigate her defenses, not retaining an expert, and not

filing a direct appeal. Judge Michael A. Guadagno, the PCR judge, considered

but rejected all those arguments. We affirm substantially for the reasons

explained by Judge Guadagno in his thoughtful written opinion.

In 2019, defendant was charged with murdering her infant on the day the

child was born. When interviewed by police officers, defendant admitted to

killing her newborn child.

Through the efforts of her trial counsel, in 2020, defendant negotiated an

agreement under which she pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4, in exchange for an agreement by the State to recommend a

prison sentence of ten years. In pleading guilty, defendant, under oath, admitted

she had become pregnant in 2018, hid her pregnancy from her parents, gave birth

to a live infant alone in a bathroom, and shortly thereafter compressed the baby's

chest with her hands causing the baby to stop breathing and die. Defendant and

her boyfriend, the dead child's father, then took the infant's body and put it in a

dumpster.

A-1124-24
2
When she pled guilty, defendant testified that she had reviewed the plea

agreement and forms with her counsel, her counsel had answered all her

questions, and she was satisfied with her counsel's representation. Defendant

also acknowledged that she understood all her rights and was voluntarily and

freely pleading guilty because she was guilty.

In April 2021, defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison with periods

of parole ineligibility and parole supervision as prescribed by the No Early

Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Defendant did not file a timely direct appeal. Instead, two years after her

sentencing, defendant moved to file an appeal out of time. Defendant sought to

challenge her sentence as "excessive." We denied the motion.

Defendant then filed a PCR petition. She was assigned counsel, and her

counsel assisted her in supplementing her petition. Judge Guadagno thereafter

heard argument on November 12, 2024. Ten days later, Judge Guadagno issued

a written opinion and order denying defendant's petition without an evidentiary

hearing.

In his thorough fifteen-page opinion, Judge Guadagno considered all of

defendant's arguments, including her contentions that her trial counsel had been

ineffective by (1) failing to retain a mental health expert; (2) failing to review

A-1124-24
3
all the discovery with her; (3) failing to negotiate a better plea; (4) failing to

argue at sentencing for mitigating factor four, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(4); and (5)

failing to file a timely appeal.

After analyzing each of defendant's arguments, Judge Guadagno

explained the reasons he was rejecting each argument and the laws that

supported his rulings. Judge Guadagno also explained why there was no basis

for an evidentiary hearing.

On this appeal, defendant argues:

[DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND
AND/OR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HER
CLAIM THAT COUNSEL RENDERED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE PRETRIAL BY
FAILING TO INVESTIGATE AND HIRE AN
EXPERT IN AN EFFORT TO ADVOCATE FOR A
BETTER PLEA DEAL, AND AFTER HER PLEA BY
FAILING TO ASSURE THAT A DIRECT APPEAL
WAS TIMELY FILED.

Those arguments are among the assertions considered by Judge

Guadagno. In analyzing defendant's first argument, Judge Guadagno reasoned

that the record did not support defendant's contention that her trial counsel failed

to investigate the matter. The judge also explained why a mental health expert

would not have supported a claim of diminished capacity or helped her negotiate

a better plea agreement. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

A-1124-24
4
(1984) (explaining that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

a defendant must show (1) "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not

functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth

Amendment[,]" and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense" );

State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-prong test in

New Jersey).

In rejecting the second argument, Judge Guadagno pointed out that we

denied defendant's motion for permission to file an out-of-time direct appeal.

The judge also noted that on direct appeal defendant was seeking to argue that

her sentence was excessive, but there was no support for that argument and,

therefore, she could show no prejudice.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record and law, we affirm

substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Guadagno in his written opinion

issued on November 22, 2024. We agree with Judge Guadagno's analysis of the

facts and his application of those facts to the governing law.

Affirmed.

A-1124-24
5