STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HECTOR W. GONZALEZ(01-06-0673 AND 01-07-0717, PASSAIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0301-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HECTOR W. GONZALEZ, a/k/a CARLOS VALLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________
Submitted January 31, 2017 – Decided October 25, 2017
Before Judges Messano and Guadagno.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County,
Indictment Nos. 01-06-0673 and 01-07-0717.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (David A. Gies, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Tom
Dominic Osadnik, Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Hector Gonzalez appeals from the denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without a hearing. We
have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal standards and we affirm.
In June 2001, a grand jury sitting in Passaic County
returned an indictment (673)1 charging defendant and two others
with first-degree armed robbery and related weapons offenses.
On July 9, 2001, a different grand jury also sitting in Passaic
County returned an indictment (717) charging defendant with
third-degree terroristic threats, and weapons charges. A third
indictment (951), which is not the subject of this appeal,
charged defendant with aggravated assault and weapons charges.
After several delays, the three indictments were scheduled
for trial2 on March 17, 2003. On that day, defendant entered
into a negotiated plea agreement to dispose of the three pending
indictments. In return for defendant's guilty pleas to three
counts of first-degree robbery (673), one count of third-degree
terroristic threats, second-degree possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose (717), and third-degree aggravated assault
(951), the State agreed to recommend a fifteen-year term on the
1
For simplicity, we refer to the indictments by their last three
numbers.
2
The trial judge indicated he would try the robbery case first
followed "immediately" by the other two.
2 A-0301-15T2
robbery charges with concurrent seven and four-year terms on the
other counts.
Because defendant was scheduled to undergo surgery, the
first plea judge delayed his sentencing until October 3, 2003.
The judge told defendant he was aware that defendant was
recently arrested and indicted on new charges and was "very
reluctantly" continuing him on bail, only because of defendant's
claimed medical condition. In addition, the judge imposed a
10:00 p.m. curfew and required defendant to report to the bail
supervision unit weekly.
On May 8, 2003, defendant appeared before a different judge
and pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to second and
third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in
satisfaction of indictment 219. In return, the State
recommended a five-year term to run concurrent with the sentence
imposed on the March 2003 plea. The second plea judge also
scheduled sentencing for October 3, 2003.
Defendant had surgery in July 2003, but thereafter he
travelled to the Dominican Republic and failed to appear for
either sentence. Defendant, who was not a citizen of the United
States, remained a fugitive for six years before he reentered
the country illegally and was arrested on two additional
charges.
3 A-0301-15T2
On February 24, 2012, defendant represented by new counsel
appeared for sentence before Judge Raymond A. Reddin on
indictments, 673, 951, 717, 219, and accusation 405, which
charged defendant under the name Carlos Valle. Defense counsel
informed Judge Reddin that defendant wanted to withdraw his
guilty pleas to the robbery and weapons charges under 673, and
717. On 219, 405, and 951, defendant was sentenced to
concurrent terms of five, three, and four years respectively.
After hearing oral argument, Judge Reddin denied
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas under 673 and
717 and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreements.
Defendant appealed his sentence and the denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas. On April 28, 2014, we affirmed both.
On May 29, 2014, defendant filed a pro se PCR petition
alleging his plea counsel "duped" him into pleading guilty when
he requested a trial. After counsel was appointed, an amended
PCR petition was filed. On June 9, 2015, Judge Reddin heard
oral argument and denied the petition.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points:
POINT ONE
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL
ATTORNEY PROVIDED INACCURATE ADVICE REGARDING
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GUILTY PLEAS WOULD
IMPACT THE DEFENDANT'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
4 A-0301-15T2
POINT TWO
WHERE THE MOTION COURT DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S
APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEAS AND
SENTENCED HIM WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER SUCH ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE WOULD HAVE
MADE A DIFFERENCE. (NOT RAISED BELOW)
We find no merit to either argument and affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Reddin's
thoughtful and thorough oral decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We
decline to address the argument made in Point Two as it was not
raised before the trial judge. State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 450
(2015). We add only the following brief comments regarding
Point One.
Defendant contends that his plea counsel was ineffective
because he failed to adequately advise him of the immigration
consequences of his plea. The plea form contained the question,
"Do you understand that if you are not a United States Citizen
or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of
guilty?" Defendant answered "Yes" to the question. During the
allocution on defendant's plea, the following exchange addressed
immigration consequences:
[JUDGE]: Now, I draw your attention
particularly to question number 17 on page 3
of that form. Are you a citizen of the
United States?
5 A-0301-15T2
[DEFENDANT]: No, I'm not.
[JUDGE]: Do you understand that by
pleading guilty here today, you may be
subject to deportation from this country?
[DEFENDANT]: I understand.
[JUDGE]: After serving your sentence, you
may be deported, you understand that?
[DEFENDANT]: Yes, I do.
Defendant entered his plea in 2003, seven years before the
Supreme Court would decide Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356,
369, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1484, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284, 297 (2010), which
required defense attorneys to advise their noncitizen clients of
the immigration consequences of pleading guilty or risk
providing constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel.
Because Padilla represented a new constitutional rule of law, it
is not entitled to retroactive application on collateral review.
State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 371 (2012).
The plea judge confirmed that defendant was aware of the
deportation consequences of his guilty plea and there is no
information in the record that defendant's plea counsel provided
inaccurate or misleading information. Defendant has failed to
satisfy either the deficiency or the prejudice prong of
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052,
6 A-0301-15T2
2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 698 (1984), and was not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing or PCR relief.
Affirmed.
7 A-0301-15T2