STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAMON CORTES (13-04-1142, CAMDEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0950-18T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RAMON CORTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted March 3, 2020 – Decided March 10, 2020
Before Judges Accurso and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 13-04-1142.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Karen Ann Lodeserto, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Kevin Jay Hein, Special
Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Ramon Cortes appeals an order denying his petition for post -
conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. The PCR judge, who
entered defendant's guilty plea to second-degree sexual assault, also entered the
order under review and issued a thorough written decision. On appeal,
defendant limits his argument to a single point for our consideration:
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYNG
DEFENDANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BECAUSE TESTIMONY IS NEEDED REGARDING
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LEGAL ADVICE PLEA
COUNSEL PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT
REGARDING THE PENAL CONSEQU[E]NCES OF
HIS GUILTY PLEA.
More particularly, defendant claims his plea counsel failed "to adequately
explain" the consequences of Parole Supervision for Life (PSL), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
6.4, and the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
We have carefully considered defendant's contentions in view of the
applicable law, and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extended
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for
the reasons set forth by the PCR judge in her well-reasoned decision. We add
the following brief remarks.
As the PCR judge correctly determined, the plea form and the colloquy
between the judge and defendant during the plea hearing bely defendant's bald
A-0950-18T1
2
assertions that his attorney was ineffective. Relevant here, the plea form
expressly provides the terms of the State's plea offer: a ten-year term of
imprisonment with an "[eighty-five percent] period of parole ineligibility
pursuant to NERA[,] Megan's Law, Parole Supervision for Life, Avenel
evaluation, Nicole's Law registration restraining order, no contact with [the]
victims, or their residence[, and] mandatory penalties."
At the plea hearing, defendant acknowledged his attorney reviewed "each
and every question on every page" of the plea form with him. Defendant also
confirmed he understood each question, provided truthful answers, and initialed
each page of the agreement. The judge reviewed the terms of the plea agreement
with defendant, including that his prison term was subject to NERA, and asked
defendant more than twenty questions related to the penal consequences of his
conviction, including PSL. When the judge asked whether defendant
understood each consequence, he politely answered, "Yes, ma'am."
We are therefore satisfied defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that his PCR claim would ultimately succeed on the merits, and failed
to satisfy either prong of the test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105
N.J. 42, 58 (1987). Pursuant to our discretionary standard of review, State v.
A-0950-18T1
3
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992), we discern no reason to disturb the judge's
decision. Because there was no prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of
counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve defendant's PCR
claims. Ibid.
Affirmed.
A-0950-18T1
4