NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0608-18T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DABOOZ SANON, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________ Submitted January 29, 2020 — Decided February 12, 2020 Before Judges Whipple and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Accusation No. 06-08-1168. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Frank M. Gennaro, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Meredith L. Balo, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Dabooz Sanon appeals from a June 29, 2018 judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm. In 2006, defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1). In accordance with his plea agreement, he received a two-year probationary sentence. In 2009, defendant violated probation and was re-sentenced to 364 days in the county jail, with credit for time served, and discharged from probation without improvement. In 2017, defendant filed a PCR petition, arguing his plea counsel was ineffective because he told defendant he would not be deported for entering into a plea. Defendant argued he only learned he would be deported in 2016, when he received a notice of removal proceedings from the Department of Homeland Security, and he would not have entered into the plea if he knew he would be deported. Judge William A. Daniel denied defendant's PCR petition in a thorough and well-written thirteen-page decision. The judge found plea counsel was not ineffective because "[a]t the time of defendant's plea, defense attorneys were not required to advise a defendant about the removal consequences of a guilt y plea, but rather, counsel had to refrain from providing 'false or misleading [material] information concerning the deportation consequences' of the plea." (second A-0608-18T3 2 alteration in original). The judge noted the subsequent change to the law pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010), holding that "[c]ounsel who fails to apprise a defendant that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation is deficient" did not retroactively apply to defendant's 2006 guilty plea. Moreover, Judge Daniel found no evidence in the record corroborating the claim plea counsel affirmatively misadvised defendant. The record offered no indication either plea counsel or the court knew defendant was not a United States citizen. "Instead, throughout formal proceedings, [defendant] . . . continuously represented that he was a U.S. citizen. . . . In fact, in [defendant's] brief he states, '[he] believed he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the plea. Based upon this, trial counsel told him deportation would not take place.'" The judge also noted defendant answered "not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals