RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2115-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. H.G.,1 Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted March 17, 2022 – Decided March 25, 2022 Before Judges Haas and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 16-04-0198. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Kristin J. Telsey, Acting Salem County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David M. Galemba, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). 1 We use initials to protect the privacy of the victim. R. 1:38-3(c)(9). PER CURIAM Defendant H.G. appeals from a July 21, 2020 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Defendant was indicted on: first-degree aggravated sexual assault, act of penetration upon a child less than thirteen years old, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a) (count one); third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a) (count two); and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) (count three). The charges stemmed from an incident reported by the victim's mother to police, recounting the victim confided in her that defendant had touched her on two separate occasions. Specifically, the child told her mother defendant isolated her in a bedroom and attempted to remove her clothing and put his hands down the front of her skirt, under her underwear , and touched her vagina. In another incident, the child stated defendant held her down on a bed, pulled up her shirt, and sucked on her left breast. Police recorded an interview with the child, and she described the incidents in greater detail. The trial court granted the State's motion, opposed by defendant, to admit fresh complaint and tender years testimony and denied defendant's motion to bar admission of the victim's pre-trial statement at trial. Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to count three. In exchange for the plea, the State recommended a A-2115-20 2 sentence of fines and assessments, Megan's Law,2 parole supervision for life, and no jail time or probation. At the plea hearing, the court questioned defendant regarding knowledge of his rights, voluntary execution of the plea forms, and his satisfaction with counsel's representation—all of which he acknowledged. The court reviewed the State's sentencing recommendation with defendant, which he also acknowledged. He advised the court he had no questions, after which his attorney elicited the factual basis for the plea. Defendant was later sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant did not appeal from his conviction or move to withdraw the plea but instead filed a PCR petition nearly two years after sentencing. He certified he was innocent and the plea was entered …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals