STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. V.S. (14-10-1770, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3301-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
V.S.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted March 2, 2021 – Decided April 23, 2021
Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 14-10-1770.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (Roseanne Sessa, Assistant Prosecutor, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a January 8, 2020 order denying his petition for
post-conviction relief (PCR) after oral argument but without an evidentiary
hearing.1 He contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim
that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to discuss with him the
requirements, restrictions, and penalties for violations of parole supervision for
life (PSL). The record establishes that defendant was adequately advised that
he would be subject to PSL because of the convictions to which he was pleading
guilty. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 2014, defendant was charged with seven crimes, including second-
degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and third-degree endangering the
welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). In a separate indictment, defendant was
charged with fourth-degree failure to notify authorities of a change of address
as required by Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(d)(1). Defendant had been
sentenced to comply with restrictions under Megan's Law on a prior conviction.
In 2015, defendant pled guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of
a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), and fourth-degree failure to notify authorities of a
change of address under Megan's Law.
1
Given that defendant's convictions involve sex crimes, we use initials in the
caption to protect privacy interests. See R. 1:38-3(c).
A-3301-19
2
Before pleading guilty, defendant reviewed, initialed, and signed plea
forms that expressly informed defendant that the conviction for third -degree
endangering the welfare of a child would include PSL and what PSL involved.
During the plea colloquy with the trial judge, the judge confirmed that defendant
had reviewed and understood those forms, including the form that notified him
of and discussed PSL. The judge also confirmed that defendant understood what
PSL was and had no questions. The judge then accepted defendant's guilty pleas.
Thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to a
suspended term of five years in prison on the third-degree conviction.
Defendant was also sentenced to PSL and required to undergo an Avenel
evaluation. See N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal. Instead, in 2019, he filed a petition
for PCR contending that his plea counsel was ineffective in failing to fully
explain PSL to him. Judge Mitzy Galis-Menendez, who was the same judge
who accepted defendant's guilty plea and sentenced him, heard oral arguments
on defendant's PCR petition. On January 8, 2020, Judge Galis-Menendez issued
a written opinion and order denying defendant's PCR petition. In her opinion,
Judge Galis-Menendez correctly identified the governing law concerning a
showing of ineffective assistance of counsel and when an evidentiary hearing is
A-3301-19
3
warranted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); accord
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland standard in New
Jersey); R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). She also correctly reviewed the record
and summarized how it rebutted defendant's contention.
On appeal, defendant argues:
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
[DEFENDANT'S] PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY
FAILING TO DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS AND PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF PSL WITH HIM.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we reject this argument
substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Galis-Menendez in her well-
reasoned and thorough written opinion.
Affirmed.
A-3301-19
4