RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3140-18T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARLOS R. LUGO, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Submitted April 27, 2020 – Decided May 21, 2020 Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 08-08- 1148. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth Ann Harrigan, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Ali Y. Ozbek, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Carlos R. Lugo appeals from a December 18, 2018 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We glean the following facts from the record. In August 2007, police arrested defendant for the sexual assault of a minor. On August 21, 2008, a Passaic County grand jury indicted defendant for second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4) (count one), and for third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) (count two). On April 20, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of fourth-degree sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3. In the course of the allocution at defendant’s plea hearing, defendant testified as to his understanding of the immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant was asked “[y]ou also know that this charge could impact on your immigration status?” He responded under oath, “Yeah.” Defendant’s trial attorney also confirmed with defendant on the record that he was not a United States citizen, and he then asked defendant whether they had discussed “that this could have some impact on your ability to seek to be a citizen.” Again, defendant responded under oath, “Yes.” A-3140-18T4 2 After reiterating that defendant’s plea could negatively affect his immigration status, the State’s attorney also asked defendant, “Do you understand that [it] is not up to this [c]ourt here, that [it] is up to the federal immigration authorities to decide that; do you understand that, sir?” Defendant again responded under oath, “Yes.” Further, the judge asked defendant at the plea hearing, “But you must understand that you could, and I just emphasize could, not necessarily will, but could be just deported for an offense like this; do you understand that?” Defendant replied under oath, “Yeah. Yes.” Additionally, on defendant’s plea form, in response to the question, “Do you understand that if you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty,” he circled “Yes.” At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial judge again questioned whether defendant was aware that his plea agreement could impact his citizenship status and lead to his deportation. Under oath, defendant again responded affirmatively to both queries. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals