NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3829-18T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BAO DOAN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued February 27, 2020 – Decided April 8, 2020 Before Judges Alvarez and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 99-01-0098. Timothy Scott Farrow argued the cause for appellant (Dash Law, LLP attorneys; Timothy Scott Farrow, on the brief). Nicole Lynn Campellone argued the cause for respondent (Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney; Nicole Lynn Campellone, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Bao Doan appeals the April 16, 2019 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. For reasons that follow, we affirm the order in part because defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, we reverse in part and remand the case for the PCR court to determine defendant's request to vacate his guilty plea. I. Defendant pleaded guilty on March 17, 1999 to count nine of Atlantic County indictment 98-12-2971 charging him with third-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. On the same day, he pleaded guilty under Atlantic County indictment 99-01-0098 to count three, charging third-degree attempted theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4 and count eight, charging third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1). He was sentenced in June 1999, to a three- year term of incarceration on each count, to be served concurrently. Defendant served his sentence. He did not file a direct appeal of his plea or sentence. In October 2018, defendant filed for post-conviction relief (PCR).1 Defendant requested to vacate his guilty plea because he alleged an adequate factual basis was not presented at the plea hearing and because he did not receive 1 The PCR petition was not included in the appendix. A-3829-18T1 2 adequate advice from his attorney about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Defendant stated in his supporting certification, that prior to pleading guilty, the trial court did not ask him whether he needed an interpreter, whether he was a citizen or whether he was aware of "the potential immigration consequences of [his] guilty plea." He alleged he would have asked for a Vietnamese interpreter had he known to do so, because his primary language is Vietnamese. He claimed he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been advised of the "potential consequences prior to entering [his] guilty plea." His certification asked to vacate his guilty plea and to remand the case for a new trial. Defendant argued that a federal policy, which had been in effect since 2008 and precluded the Vietnamese who came to the United States before July 1995 from being deported, was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals