RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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 NOS. A-5244-17T4 A-0475-18T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE K. ASANTE, Defendant-Appellant. Submitted November 19, 2019 – Decided December 11, 2019 Before Judges Fisher and Rose. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 14-04- 0268 and Atlantic County, Indictment No. 16-01-0070. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Janet Anne Allegro, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the briefs). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lauren Bonfiglio, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs). PER CURIAM In these appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes of our opinion, defendant George K. Asante seeks reversal of two Law Division orders, denying his petitions for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Born in Ghana, defendant immigrated to the United States in 1996. At the time of his guilty pleas, which were entered sixteen months apart in two different vicinages, defendant stated he was a United States citizen. But, after entry of the second guilty plea, defendant was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Prior to his deportation in 2018, defendant sought PCR from both convictions, claiming his plea attorneys should have ascertained his status in this country, despite defendant's sworn statements that he was a United States citizen. We reject defendant's arguments and affirm both orders under review. I. We commence our review with a discussion of the relevant legal principles, which are common to both appeals. Where, as here, the trial court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition, we may review de novo the factual inferences the court has drawn from the documentary record. State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351, 373 (App. Div. 2014). We also review de novo the court's conclusions of law. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420 (2004). A-5244-17T4 2 When petitioning for PCR, the defendant must establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, entitlement to the requested relief. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992). To sustain that burden, the defendant must allege and articulate specific facts, which "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its decision." State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579 (1992). The mere raising of a claim for PCR does not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999). To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success under the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). That is, the defendant must show: (1) the deficiency of his counsel's ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals