RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3525-18T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER EMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted November 17, 2020 – Decided February 3, 2021 Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FO-03-0248-19. Domers, Bonamassa & Hynes, PC, attorneys for appellant (Michael A. Bonamassa, on the brief). Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alexis R. Agre, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Christopher Emmons appeals from an order of disposition after he pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for contempt of a final restraining order (FRO), N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(2), that prohibited him from having any contact with his former girlfriend, the mother of his daughter, arguing: POINT I [DEFENDANT] WAS WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TO ENTER INTO A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE FRO AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED, BY WAY OF DISCUSSION WITH HIS COUNSEL, OR BY THE COURT, TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WITH THE MATTER TO BE SCHEDULED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE: 1. THE PLEA WAS NOT ACTUALLY KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY, AS [DEFENDANT] HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT AND DID NOT KNOW THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES, AND 2. HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND NOR PROVIDE A FULL FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGES. POINT II DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE HE WAS MIS-ADVISED BOTH BY HIS COUNSEL AND THE [PLEA] COURT CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA. AT MINIMUM, DEFENDANT MAINTAINS A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. A-3525-18T3 2 Defendant never filed a motion to withdraw his plea or a petition for post - conviction relief (PCR); on the record before us, we affirm. Rule 3:9-2 prohibits the plea court from accepting a plea without first questioning the defendant personally, under oath or by affirmation, and determining by inquiry of the defendant and others, in the court's discretion, that there is a factual basis for the plea and that the plea is made voluntarily, not as a result of any threats or of any promises or inducements not disclosed on the record, and with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. "Once it is established that a guilty plea was made voluntarily, it may only be withdrawn at the discretion of the trial court." State v. Lipa, 219 N.J. 323, 332 (2014). Under Rule 3:21-1, "[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or non vult shall be made before sentencing, but the court may permit it to be made thereafter to correct a manifest injustice." Thus, a defendant may withdraw a post-sentencing plea only to "correct a manifest ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals