NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0467-18T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. YEISSON ANTONIO CONTRERAS-RIJO, a/k/a YEISSON CABRERA-RIJO, YEISSON CABRERA, and YEISSON RIJO, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________ Submitted October 10, 2019 – Decided December 4, 2019 Before Judges Nugent and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 12-03-0183. Regis Fernandez, attorney for appellant. Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Yeisson A. Contreras-Rijo appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He argues his lack of knowledge constituted "excusable neglect" for not filing the petition within five years of his conviction. We affirm the denial of his PCR petition. I. Defendant was arrested after he took a piece of wood from his truck and swung it at a Home Depot loss prevention officer, who had confronted defendant about making returns of merchandise that were falsified. Defendant was indicted for first-degree robbery (count one), N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, third-degree possession of a weapon (wooden board) for an unlawful purpose (count two), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d), fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (count three), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), and third-degree terroristic threats (count four), N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a) and (b). Defendant pleaded guilty to count two. He signed the standard plea form, answering that he was not a United States citizen 1 and acknowledging the guilty plea may result in his removal from the United States. He answered "yes" that 1 Defendant is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. He has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since 2008. A-0467-18T4 2 he understood he had the right to seek advice from an immigration attorney, "no" that he had not discussed the immigration consequences of his plea with an attorney and "no" that he did not want the opportunity to do so. He answered question 17f at the hearing—because it had been left blank—acknowledging "yes" that he was advised of his right to seek individualized legal advice on immigration consequences. The trial court asked defendant at the plea hearing whether he was subject to a detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Immigration). His attorney advised the court that he did not think there was a detainer, but defendant told him that Immigration reviewed his documents at the jail . The trial judge reviewed the plea form immigration questions with defendant: THE COURT: All right. Mr. Contreras, just to go over that section of questions with you briefly. You do understand that even though you have legal permanent residency that you could ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals