NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-5237-16T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERISKEYPHY HENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Submitted September 18, 2019 – Decided October 7, 2019 Before Judges Whipple and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 14-02-0249. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Charles P. Savoth III, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Mark Musella, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nicole Paton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from the May 5, 2017 Law Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, defendant raises the following single point for our consideration: IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE PCR COURT TO DENY [DEFENDANT] AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHEN NO EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED OTHER THAN PETITIONER'S UNCONTROVERTED REPRESEN[T]ATIONS THAT HE WAS NOT ADVISED BY COUNSEL HE WOULD BE DEPORTED IF HE AGREED TO THE STATE'S PLEA BARGAIN[.] We disagree and affirm. We derive the following facts from the record. On October 9, 2014, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.3a and 2C:2-6. At the plea hearing, after defendant advised the plea judge he was not a United States citizen, the judge informed defendant that "there [were] going to be immigration consequences[.]" The following colloquy then ensued between the judge and defendant: THE COURT: Have you had an opportunity to speak to independent counsel for immigration consequences? A-5237-16T4 2 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.1 THE COURT: Okay. . . . I don't know what immigration counsel told you. But I'm just going to tell you what I know. . . . [M]y understanding is that as a result of this, you will, in fact, be deported. And if you get deported, you may not be returned to the United States. If you do not have legal status, you can't get legal status. If you do have legal status, you . . . cannot be[come] a United States citizen, and you may be detained in [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] custody. Do you understand all those things? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: But notwithstanding that, . . . you're still willing to plead guilty today? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Additionally, on the written plea form, defendant responded "yes" to question seventeen, indicating he understood that if he was not a United States citizen, his guilty plea "may result in [his] removal from the United States and . . . stop [him] from being able to legally enter or re-enter the United States[.]" On the form, defendant also ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals