STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOCELYN LEZIN (07-02-0319, OCEAN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1714-18T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOCELYN LEZIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted January 6, 2020 – Decided January 21, 2020
Before Judges Vernoia and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 07-02-0319.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief
Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Shiraz I. Deen,
Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jocelyn Lezin appeals from an order denying his first post-
conviction relief (PCR) petition without an evidentiary hearing. Because we
agree with the Law Division judge that the petition is time-barred, and otherwise
conclude defendant failed to establish a prima facie ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, we affirm.
I.
In December 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree distribution
of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(13), pursuant to a
plea agreement with the State. In exchange for defendant's plea, the State agreed
to recommend dismissal of two other third-degree drug offenses and the
imposition of a probationary sentence conditioned on a 364-day jail sentence.
The State further agreed not to seek an extended term of imprisonment or a
period of parole ineligibility. In response to "Question No. 17" on his plea form,
which asked, "[d]o 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
indicated "YES."
On February 15, 2008, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with
the plea agreement. Defendant did not file a direct appeal. Defendant's
presentence investigation report reflected that he had five prior municipal court
A-1714-18T1
2
convictions and a 2007 indictable conviction for third-degree possession of
heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), for which he received a probationary sentence.
On November 28, 2016, more than eight years after his guilty plea and
sentencing, defendant filed a PCR petition lacking any factual support for his
request for relief. Following assignment of counsel, defendant filed a
certification asserting he agreed to the 2007 plea agreement but did not know at
the time his conviction "would later result in deportation proceedings against"
him. He claimed his plea counsel "did not explain the deportation consequences
of taking the plea deal" or "discuss the implications of entering into a guilty plea
. . . especially considering [he is] not a citizen of the United States." Defendant
further asserted the court did not inquire about his "legal status in the country,"
"talk about deportation consequences," or advise him of his right to seek PCR.
He claimed that "[b]ut for [his] attorney's advice, [he] would not have taken the
plea deal," and that his plea counsel was ineffective by lacking the competence
required to provide advice about the immigration consequences of his plea; by
failing to advise him to confer with immigration counsel; and by not requesting
an adjournment of the plea proceeding so he could confer with immigration
counsel.
A-1714-18T1
3
Following oral argument, the court issued a detailed written opinion
denying defendant's petition. The court found the petition is time-barred under
Rule 3:22-12(a)(1) because it was filed more than five years after defendant's
2008 conviction, and defendant failed to demonstrate either excusable neglect
for the late filing or the interests of justice require relaxation of the time-bar.
The court rejected defendant's claim he did not become aware of the potential
immigration consequences of his plea until 2016, when he first received a notice
of deportation. The court found defendant was aware of the risk of deportation
associated with his conviction because he responded affirmatively to "Question
No. 17" on the plea form, which advised that his conviction could result in
deportation. The court noted defendant testified during his plea proceeding that
he had reviewed the plea form with his attorney.
Although the court determined the PCR petition is time-barred, it also
addressed the merits of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The
court found that under the law applicable at the time of defendant's plea, his
counsel was not ineffective by failing to provide advice concerning the
immigration consequences of his plea. The court further determined defendant
failed to demonstrate an entitlement to withdraw his plea. See State v. Slater,
A-1714-18T1
4
198 N.J. 145, 156 (2009). The court entered an order denying defendant's
petition. This appeal followed.
Defendant presents the following arguments for our consideration:
POINT ONE
THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
REMANDED TO THE PCR COURT FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TESTIMONY IS
NEEDED FROM TRIAL COUNSEL TO
DETERMINE WHY HE FAILED TO REQUEST AN
ADJOURNMENT FOR HIS CLIENT TO SPEAK
WITH AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER PRIOR TO
PLEADING GUILTY AND TO DETERMINE THE
SUBSTANCE OF HIS ADVICE TO DEFENDANT
REGARDING DEPORTATION.
POINT TWO
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT EXISTED FOR
DEFENDANT'S LATE FILING AS HE WAS NOT
ADVISED REGARDING THE TIME FRAME TO
APPLY FOR RELIEF.
II.
A PCR petition must be filed within five years of the entry of the judgment
of conviction unless the defendant demonstrates "excusable neglect" for missing
the deadline and that "enforcement of the time[-]bar would result in a
fundamental injustice." R. 3:22-12(a)(1). A petition may also be filed within
one year of "the courts recogniz[ing] a new constitutional right or defendant
A-1714-18T1
5
discover[ing] a previously unknown factual predicate justifying relief from the
conviction." State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 398 (App. Div. 2013)
(citing R. 3:22-12(a)(2)). The time-bar should be relaxed only "under
exceptional circumstances." State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 52 (1997).
Defendant filed his petition more than eight years after he was convicted
in 2008. He claims there was excusable neglect permitting the late filing of his
petition because he was not informed about, and was otherwise unaware of, the
procedural requirements for filing a PCR claim. Defendant's claimed lack of
familiarity with the procedural requirements for the filing of a PCR petition is
insufficient to support a finding of excusable neglect. State v. Murray, 315 N.J.
Super. 535, 539-40 (App. Div. 1998), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 162
N.J. 240, 246 (2000). "Ignorance of the law and rules of court does not qu alify
as excusable neglect," State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 295 n.6 (App. Div.)
(quoting State v. Merola, 365 N.J. Super. 203, 218 (Law Div. 2002), aff'd o.b.,
365 N.J. Super. 82, 84 (App. Div. 2003)), certif. denied, 236 N.J. 35 (2018), and
an otherwise untimely PCR petition "is time-barred if it does not claim
excusable neglect, or allege the facts relied on to support that claim," State v.
Cann, 342 N.J. Super. 93, 101-02 (App. Div. 2001) (citing State v. Mitchell, 126
N.J. 565, 577 (1992)); see also State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149, 159 (App.
A-1714-18T1
6
Div. 2009) ("[T]o overcome the procedural bar in [Rule] 3:22-12, defendant
must show that the delay in filing the PCR petition was attributable to excusable
neglect.").
Defendant also failed to establish a reasonable probability that
enforcement of the time-bar would result in a fundamental injustice. R. 3:22-
12(a)(1)(A). There is a fundamental injustice "when the judicial system has
denied a 'defendant with fair proceedings leading to a just outcome' or when
'inadvertent errors mistakenly impacted a determination of guilt or otherwise
wrought a miscarriage of justice.'" State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 546 (2013)
(quoting Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587). Thus, to satisfy the fundamental-injustice
prong of the Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)(A) standard, a defendant "must make 'some
showing' that an error or violation 'played a role in the determination of guilt.'"
Id. at 547 (quoting State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 13 (1990)). Defendant made no
such showing here.
The PCR court correctly determined defendant's certification in support
of his petition does not establish either excusable neglect or that enforcement of
the Rule 3:22-12(a)(1) time-bar would result in a fundamental injustice. See
Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 576-77 (finding a PCR "petition itself must allege the facts
A-1714-18T1
7
relied on to support the claim"). We therefore affirm the court's denial of the
PCR petition because it is time-barred.
After correctly finding defendant's petition was time-barred, the PCR
court also considered the merits of defendant's claim his plea counsel provided
constitutionally ineffective assistance. The judge found defendant did not
establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and an
evidentiary hearing was not required. Defendant argues the judge erred in doing
so. We disagree.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee a defendant in a criminal
matter the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Nash, 212 N.J. at 541
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984)). To show that he
or she was denied the effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must meet the
two-part test established in Strickland. Id. at 542.
The defendant must show that counsel's performance "fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness" and that "counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. In addition, the defendant
"must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Id. at 687.
A-1714-18T1
8
The defendant therefore must establish "a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different." Id. at 694.
When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel in connection
with the entry of a guilty plea, he or she must show that counsel's assistance was
outside "the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases," and
that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the
defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994) (first quoting Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258, 266 (1973); then quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)
(alteration in original)).
Defendant argues his plea counsel did not inform him about the
immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant entered his plea in 2007 and
was convicted and sentenced in 2008, prior to the United State Supreme Court's
holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010), that when deportation
is a clear consequence of a guilty plea, the defendant's counsel has an affirmative
duty and obligation to address the subject and give correct advice. The Court
also held that when the deportation consequences of a plea are uncertain, counsel
need only advise his or her client that the plea may carry a risk of adverse
A-1714-18T1
9
immigration consequences. Ibid.
Our Supreme Court later held that Padilla established a new rule of law,
which would not be applied retroactively. State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 373
(2012). The United States Supreme Court thereafter reached the same
conclusion. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 358 (2013). Thus, even
assuming the deportation consequences of defendant's plea were clear when
defendant entered his plea in 2007, his attorney's failure to provide the advice
later required by Padilla did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
In State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 141-42 (2009), our Supreme
Court held that a defendant could establish ineffective assistance of co unsel if
the defendant's counsel provided false or inaccurate advice assuring that the plea
would not result in deportation. However, a defendant's claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel fails when he does not present any evidence of misadvice
and the defendant had been on notice of the potential immigration consequences
of the plea. Gaitan, 209 N.J. at 374-75.
Here, the record supports the judge's finding that the plea form defendant
testified he reviewed with his counsel and signed explained that he may be
deported as the result of his conviction. Defendant does not assert his plea
counsel provided any affirmatively inaccurate, false, or misleading information
A-1714-18T1
10
about the immigration consequences of his plea, see Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. at
143, even though defendant was not told that deportation was mandatory, see
Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. at 397 (explaining that under Nuñez-Valdéz, warning
a defendant he or she may be deported was not unreasonable advice or outside
the norms of the profession and did not constitute prima facie proof of
ineffective assistance of counsel). Thus, defendant did not establish his
counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" as
required under the first prong of the Strickland standard. Strickland, 466 U.S. at
687-88.
Defendant also failed to establish prejudice under the second prong of the
Strickland standard because he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that
but for his counsel's alleged errors, he would have rejected the negotiated plea
arrangement and proceeded to trial. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. at 457. Defendant was
also required to show "it would have been rational for him to decline the plea
offer and insist on going to trial and, in fact, that he probably would have done
so." State v. Maldon, 422 N.J. Super. 475, 486 (App. Div. 2011) (citing Padilla,
559 U.S. at 372).
Defendant failed to present any facts showing it would have been rational
for him to reject the plea offer, and he probably would have done so. His petition
A-1714-18T1
11
and certification simply do not address the issue, other than with the bald
assertion that if he had been accurately informed about the immigration
consequences of his plea, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. His
bald, conclusory allegations do not satisfy his burden. See State v. Cummings,
321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999) (finding that "bald assertions" are
insufficient to sustain a defendant's burden of establishing a prima facie case of
ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard).
The record also does not support a finding it would have been rational for
defendant to reject the plea offer and proceed to trial. It appears the State had a
strong case against defendant. He was arrested in a hotel room where more than
250 bags of heroin were seized. The police also arrested two individuals they
observed separately enter the hotel room and then exit; both of the individuals
were found to be in possession of heroin. Defendant's codefendant, with whom
he was arrested in the hotel room, told the police she let individuals into the
room, and defendant sold heroin to them. Moreover, at the time he pleaded
guilty, defendant was serving a probationary sentence for a prior possession of
controlled dangerous substance charge. By pleading guilty, defendant obtained
a probationary sentence conditioned only on service of a jail sentence; avoided
a prison sentence of up to five years on the distribution of heroin charge, see
A-1714-18T1
12
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3) (providing a sentencing range of three to five years on a
conviction for a third-degree crime); and obtained the State's commitment not
to request imposition of a period of parole ineligibility. In sum, defendant makes
no showing that given those circumstances, it would have been rational to forego
the plea offer and proceed to trial, and he probably would have done so. Maldon,
422 N.J. Super. at 486.
A petitioner must establish both prongs of the Strickland standard to
obtain a reversal of the challenged conviction. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687;
Nash, 212 N.J. at 542. A failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard
requires the denial of a PCR petition. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700. In addition,
because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for PCR, he was not
entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354 (2013);
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992).
Affirmed.
A-1714-18T1
13