NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0401-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HINA RABIA, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Submitted January 21, 2021 – Decided February 19, 2021 Before Judges Vernoia and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 15-06-0966. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lillian Kayed, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Hina Rabia appeals from an order denying her post-conviction relief (PCR) petition which sought the reversal of her conviction for third -degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(1). The court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding defendant failed to establish a prim a facie case of ineffective assistance of her plea counsel under the two-pronged standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). Having considered defendant's arguments, the record, and the applicable legal principles, we are convinced the PCR court correctly denied the petition and we affirm. I. A grand jury charged defendant in an indictment with second-degree aggravated arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(a)(1), and alleged she started a fire in her room at a motel and "purposely and/or knowingly plac[ed] other . . . residents" of the motel "in danger of death or bodily injury." Represented by counsel, defendant negotiated a plea agreement permitting her to plead guilty to a reduced charge of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(1), in exchange for the State's recommendation that she receive a probationary sentence. A-0401-19 2 During the plea proceeding, the court questioned defendant concerning the immigration consequences of her plea. Defendant testified she was not a United States citizen and she understood she "could be deported" as a result of her plea. She also testified she understood that, as a result of her plea, she might be prevented from returning to the United States if she left the country. Defendant said she understood that she had "the right to speak to an immigration attorney" about the consequences of her plea, but she opted to forego that opportunity and proceed with the plea proceeding. 1 Plea counsel informed the court that he had conferred with another attorney in his office about the immigration consequences of the plea, and that he advised defendant "there are no immigration consequences" from the plea "relative to her legal status so she will remain as having legal status." The court advised defendant that despite plea counsel's statements concerning the effect of the plea on her immigration status, it did not have authority to determine if defendant would be deported. The court ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals