STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PEDRO M. DECASTRO (06-08-2615 AND 06-12-3935, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3893-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PEDRO M. DECASTRO a/k/a
PEDRO DECASTRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted September 29, 2021 – Decided February 1, 2022
Before Judges Fuentes and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 06-08-2615
and 06-12-3935.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen A.
Pogany, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Pedro DeCastro appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief
(PCR) petition and alternative motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in connection
with his 2007 convictions for various drug and assault offenses.
In his petition, defendant contended his trial counsel had rendered
ineffective assistance by misadvising him about the deportation consequences
of his guilty pleas, failing to file a direct appeal, and failing to file pre-trial
motions. After hearing oral argument, Judge Martin Cronin ordered an
evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel had misadvised defendant (i) of the
immigration consequences of pleading guilty and (ii) concerning any delay in
filing a PCR application. During the evidentiary hearing, defendant and his trial
counsel testified. Judge Cronin subsequently issued an order denying
defendant's petition and alternate motion and a twenty-five-page opinion in
which he found defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were time
barred under Rule 3:22-12 and that all of his claims substantively lacked merit.
Judge Cronin held defendant had failed to meet the Strickland/Fritz test to
establish his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 51-52 (1987).
He also denied defendant's alternative motion to withdraw his guilty pleas,
A-3893-19
2
finding defendant failed to meet the test under State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 157-
58 (2009).
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT ONE
MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON HIS
CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY
MISADVISING HIM ABOUT THE DEPORTATION
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.
POINT TWO
MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF, A
REMAND OR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON
HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
BECAUSE HE FAILED TO FILE A DIRECT
APPEAL.
POINT THREE
MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT
HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE FAILED
TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS.
POINT FOUR
MR. DECASTRO'S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE SET
ASIDE OR THE MATTER REMANDED FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
POINT FIVE
A-3893-19
3
THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT
MR. DECASTRO'S CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE TIME-
BARRED BECAUSE ANY DELAY IN FILING THE
PETITION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT'S
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT IF THE
DEFENDANT'S FACTUAL ASSERTIONS WERE
FOUND TO BE TRUE, ENFORCEMENT OF THE
TIME BAR WOULD RESULT IN A
FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE.
We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Cronin's
comprehensive, written opinion.
We add that we discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Cronin's decision
to limit the evidentiary hearing to defendant's claims about his trial counsel's
allegedly inadequate advice. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)
(holding "[i]f the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid
the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief,
. . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted"); State v. L.G.-M., 462 N.J.
Super. 357, 365 (App. Div. 2020) (holding "[w]e review a trial court's decision
to grant or deny a defendant's request for a hearing under an abuse of discretion
standard").
Affirmed.
A-3893-19
4