RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1855-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PORFIRIO A. NUNEZ-MOSQUEA, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted January 24, 2022 – Decided February 3, 2022 Before Judges Rose and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment Nos. 12-08- 1139 and 12-08-1142. The Allongo Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Falguni Patel, on the brief). Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie D. Piderit, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Porfirio A. Nunez-Mosquea, a non-citizen of the United States, appeals from a January 28, 2021 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. In May 2014, a jury convicted defendant of multiple counts charged in a Middlesex County indictment for the kidnapping and attempted sexual assault of a college student at gunpoint in New Brunswick. Defendant thereafter pled guilty to certain persons not to have weapons, charged in a companion indictment that was bifurcated for trial purposes. Judge Diane Pincus, who presided over defendant's trial, sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of thirty-nine years. We affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence on direct appeal, State v. Nunez-Mosquea, No. A-2594-14 (App. Div. 2017) (slip op. at 25), and the Supreme Court denied certification, 232 N.J. 287 (2018). We incorporate by reference the details of this stranger-to-stranger crime, which were set forth at length in our prior opinion. Nunez-Mosquea, No. A-2594-14 (slip op. at 2-7). In January 2019, defendant filed a petition for PCR, with the assistance of counsel. In his certification dated August 16, 2018, defendant alleged his retained trial attorney was ineffective for failing to: meet with defendant to review discovery and prepare trial strategy; communicate plea offers; "seek 2 A-1855-20 additional DNA testing"; locate evidence from the crime scene; and file an alibi notice. PCR counsel subsequently withdrew defendant's petition without prejudice and thereafter filed the present petition. Defendant apparently reasserted his initial claims and further contended trial "[c]ounsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of a conviction." 1 Following oral argument, Judge Pincus reserved decision. Shortly thereafter, the judge issued a cogent written opinion, squarely addressing the cumulative errors alleged in view of the governing Strickland/Fritz 2 framework. The judge denied all claims for relief. Citing controlling precedent, the judge essentially concluded defendant either failed to support his "bald assertions" or the record belied his claims. As to the immigration consequences of his plea, Judge Pincus found the record demonstrated defendant "repeatedly misrepresented his immigration 1 Because only defendant's August 16, 2018 certification was included in the appendix on appeal, we glean the arguments raised before …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals