NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3912-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GUILLERMO PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Submitted November 10, 2021 – Decided January 25, 2022 Before Judges Gilson and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 16-03- 0413. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Joseph Anthony Manzo, Designated Counsel, and on the brief). Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Guillermo Peralta appeals from a February 3, 2020 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following oral argument but without an evidentiary hearing. He argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his assertions that his trial counsel was ineffective in not fully explaining his rights to appeal the denial of his application to enter the pretrial intervention program (PTI) and the immigration consequences of his subsequent plea to violations of probation. We reject those arguments and affirm. I. In December 2015, defendant was arrested while he was burglarizing his aunt's home. Defendant had broken into the house through a window, which triggered an alarm. Police officers responded and found defendant in the home in possession of a cell phone and two watches. Defendant later admitted that he had stolen those items while in the home and that they were worth more than $500. Defendant was indicted for three crimes: third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1); third-degree theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a); and fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a). Defendant applied for admission into PTI, but the Criminal Division manager A-3912-19 2 recommended that defendant not be admitted. The prosecutor agreed with that recommendation and explained in a letter that he would not consent to defendant's PTI admission. Defendant did not file a motion with the Law Division seeking to compel his entry into PTI over the prosecutor's objection. Instead, defendant and his counsel negotiated a plea agreement. In July 2016, defendant pled guilty to third-degree burglary and third-degree theft. Before entering that plea, defendant reviewed plea forms in which he acknowledged that he was not a United States citizen, he understood that his plea could result in his removal from the United States, and he had been informed of his opportunity to consult with an immigration lawyer, but he declined to do so. Before entering his plea, defendant was questioned by a judge and defendant confirmed that he understood the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Indeed, the judge told defendant that if either of his crimes are considered "aggravated felonies" under federal law, he "will be subject to deportation." Defendant acknowledged …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals