NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1485-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PHILIP SEIDLE, a/ka/ PHILIP T. SEIDLE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued March 8, 2021 – Decided July 22, 2021 Before Judges Suter and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 15-11- 1963. Robin Kay Lord argued the cause for appellant. Maura K. Tully, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney; Maura K. Tully, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Philip Seidle pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appeals an October 29, 2019 order which denied defendant's petition for post- conviction relief (PCR) and his request for an evidentiary hearing. Defendant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel did not enlist a qualified mental health expert. Alternatively, defendant argues that he has at least presented a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. We affirm for the reasons set forth below. I. Defendant and Tamara Seidle divorced during May 2015. On the morning of June 16, defendant drove past the home where he and Ms. Seidle lived before their separation. He saw a car in the driveway he did not recognize and recorded the license plate number in his phone. Defendant called and asked Ms. Seidle who owned the car. She told him it was none of his business and hung up. After online research, defendant discovered that Ms. Seidle's boyfriend was from Georgia, matching the license plate for the car. Defendant concluded that the car belonged to the boyfriend. 2 A-1485-19 That same day, defendant planned to take his seven-year-old daughter dress shopping for a father-daughter dance. As he and his young daughter left to go shopping, defendant brought his gun belt with his service weapon. While in the car with his daughter, defendant called Ms. Seidle again. Defendant asked her about the car in the driveway; she responded once again it was none of his business. Defendant told Ms. Seidle that if the boyfriend was living there, he did not approve. Defendant then asked his daughter about the boyfriend; she told him the man has been living there for about two weeks. Defendant believed Ms. Seidle was attempting to replace him, as a father, with her boyfriend. After talking with his young daughter, defendant drove to Ms. Seidle's place of employment, a church in Asbury Park. When he arrived, she was in her car and fled the parking lot at a high rate of speed; defendant pursued. Defendant rammed Ms. Seidle's car with his car …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments