NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-5059-17T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANSUMANI KAMARA, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted December 4, 2019 - Decided December 16, 2019 Before Judges Koblitz and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 13-03- 0707. 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 Marzarella, Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Roberta DiBiase, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Ansumani Kamara, who was born in Liberia, appeals from the February 16, 2018 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing following his guilty plea to first degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(2). Because his counsel may have been ineffective in not explaining the deportation consequences of his August 2014 guilty plea, we reverse and remand for a plenary hearing. We review a judge's denial of PCR without an evidentiary hearing de novo. State v. Jackson, 454 N.J. Super. 284, 291 (App. Div. 2018). "Post- conviction relief is neither a substitute for direct appeal, R. 3:22-3, nor an opportunity to relitigate cases already decided on the merits, R. 3:22-5." State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992). A defendant raises a cognizable PCR claim if it is based upon a "[s]ubstantial denial in the conviction proceedings of defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey." R. 3:22-2(a). Because all criminal defendants have the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in their defense, defendants may bring a PCR claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI; N.J. Const. art. I, ΒΆ 10. To reverse a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that both: (1) "counsel's performance was A-5059-17T4 2 deficient" and (2) counsel's "errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two-part test in New Jersey). Under the first prong, counsel's representation must be objectively unreasonable. State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 578 (2015). Under the second prong, a "reasonable probability [must exist] that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 583 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). In reviewing a PCR petition seeking to set aside a guilty plea, a court will find ineffective assistance of counsel upon the defendant's showing "that (i) counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals