NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2499-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILMER M. REYES, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted August 2, 2022 – Decided August 9, 2022 Before Judges Geiger and Rose. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment Nos. 14-11-3597 and 16-06-1751. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace C. MacAulay, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kevin J. Hein, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Wilmer M. Reyes appeals from a Law Division order denying his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). On appeal, defendant challenges trial counsel's effectiveness, claiming counsel failed to advise him about the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas, and claims the court erred by denying PCR without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We take the following facts from the record. In November 2014, defendant was charged in Indictment No. 14-11-3597 with third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), and third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35- 5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(3). In May 2015, defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of CDS in exchange for a recommended two-year non-custodial term of probation and dismissal of the other count. During the plea hearing, defendant acknowledged that he understood the charges he faced and the terms of the plea agreement, had enough time to discuss the case with counsel, was satisfied with the services of counsel, reviewed the questions on the plea forms with counsel and understood the questions, answered the questions truthfully, signed and initialed the plea forms, and understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Defendant further acknowledged he was born in the Dominican Republic and was not a A-2499-20 2 United States citizen. The court engaged in the following colloquy with defendant regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, with a brief interjection by his counsel, Patrick E. Malloy: THE COURT: Sir, do you understand that if you're not a citizen of the United States, the guilty plea may result in your removal from the United States or stop you from being legally able to enter or reenter the United States? DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You also understand that you have a right to seek individualized advice from an attorney about the effect your guilty plea will have on your immigration status; do you understand that, sir? DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Sir, have you discussed with an attorney the potential immigration consequences of this plea? DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: You circled yes. MR. MALLOY: Judge, he discussed it with me. DEFENDANT: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MALLOY: He – A-2499-20 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals