NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0810-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAZARO R. GUITEREZ, a/k/a GUTIERREZ-RECINOS, and LAZARO FACUNDO, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Submitted February 23, 2021 – Decided March 15, 2021 Before Judges Mawla and Natali. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 14-09-1377. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Jaimee M. Chasmer, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant, Lazaro R. Guiterez, a non-citizen of the United States, appeals from an August 30, 2019 Law Division order denying his petition for post- conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. I. On May 14, 2014, the Paramus police received a 911 call from the victim of a home invasion. The victim stated several male individuals broke in to his home, threw him to the ground, covered his eyes and mouth, and tied him up with a telephone cord. After they fled the residence, the victim freed himself from the restraints and called the police. A grand jury returned an indictment against defendant charging him with first-degree kidnapping, second-degree robbery, and third-degree burglary. Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to second-degree robbery and the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to an eight - year prison term, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The court also dismissed the remaining charges in the indictment and assessed appropriate fines and penalties. A-0810-19 2 During the plea hearing, defendant stated he felt "comfortable" proceeding with the services of the interpreter provided by the court. He also indicated that his counsel utilized an interpreter when she discussed the plea forms with him and that he understood the questions she asked. Defendant confirmed that he reviewed the investigatory reports and was satisfied with his counsel's representation. He also acknowledged he was waiving his right to a jury trial, that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty, and that no one coerced, forced, or threatened him to plead guilty. On the written plea forms, defendant confirmed he was not a United States citizen and responded "yes" to question 17(b), indicating he understood that "[his] guilty plea may result in [his] removal from the United States and . . . stop [him] from being able to legally enter or re-enter the United States[.]" Defendant also acknowledged he had the "right to seek individualized advice from an attorney about the effect [his] guilty plea will have on [his] immigration status[.]" In response to question 17(d), however, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals