Rahjiv Smith failed to convince an appeals court his attorney in 2005 was ineffective and that's why he was convicted of murder.
Rahjiv Smith, right, at his arraignment in 2003 with a public defender, Richard Barker, left. NEW BRUNSWICK --An appeals court has rejected a New Brunswick man's arguments that he is entitled to a new trial for the 2003 murder of his friend because his defense attorney was ineffective.
In a 6-page decision released Friday, the two-judge panel agreed with the trial judge who ruled following a post conviction relief hearing that Rahjiv Smith had not shown that his attorney, Robert Corbin, was ineffective during his trial in 2005.
Smith was 20 years old in 2005 when he was found guilty of slaying his friend, Troy Brown-Johnson, 20, of New Brunswick following an argument over drugs and money on Dec. 17, 2003.
Smith was sentenced to 50 years in state prison and ordered to serve 41 years before he is eligible for parole by Superior Court Judge James Mulvihill.
The appellate panel decision said Smith never disputed he fired the fatal shot into the back of Brown-Johnson's head, but his trial strategy was to suggest to the jury that it was not purposeful or knowing murder. However, the jury rejected the strategy.
After losing his direct appeal of his conviction, Smith filed for post conviction relief in 2010, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel because Corbin strongly advised him not to testify despite Smith's lack of a criminal record and because Corbin failed to pursue an intoxication defense.
When the motion came up before a trial judge, the judge, denied the petition to call witnesses and present any new evidence, including a doctor who would testify that Smith was on drugs when he shot Brown-Johnson, according to the appellate decision.
Smith appealed the judge's denial and, in 2014, the appellate court overturned the denial, ruling "an evidential hearing is warranted to resolve defendant's contentions that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance."
According to Friday's decision, the judge conducted the hearing on June 19, 2014, and both Smith and Corbin testified. Mulvihill, who was the original trial judge but had since retired and was on recall, presided over the hearing.
The appellate decision said the trial judge rejected Smith's application for post conviction relief and ruled he had effective trial counsel.
The appellate judges agreed.
"The attorney testified, and the judge found, that an intoxication defense presented hazards," the judges wrote. They said Corbin didn't believe his expert witness would be as persuasive as the state's expert and could hurt his case.
As for allowing his client to testify, Smith confessed to police shortly after the murder.
"He advised the defendant against testifying because his version of what occurred was presented to the jury through his audio statement," the decision said.
"Consequently, the defendant's testimony would have been repetitious or, if he testified differently, the able prosecutor would have poked holes in those inconsistencies through cross-examination further damaging the defense."
Therefore, "we agree the defendant's showing fell far short of that required..." by the standards of law to grant post conviction relief applications, the judges said.
A jury deliberated less than an hour before conviction Smith, who was picked up hours after the shooting.
Smith shot Brown-Johnson about 2 a.m. and dragged the victim behind a house on Townsend Street, where the body was found a short time later.
Prosecutors told the jury that Smith told police he killed Brown-Johnson because the victim had embarrassed Smith.
Sue Epstein may be reached at sepstein@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @susan_epstein. Find NJ.com on Facebook.