NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3853-17T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. IBRAHIM S. DAO, a/k/a ACE S. DAO, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Submitted October 16, 2019 – Decided November 22, 2019 Before Judges Yannotti and Hoffman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 03-02-0542. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth E. Hunter, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Ibrahim Dao appeals from the January 26, 2018 Law Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. I In 2002, defendant, a non-citizen of the United States and Sierra Leone national, was charged with first-degree robbery and other offenses. On May 3, 2004, defendant pled guilty to third-degree terroristic threats, and on June 18, 2004, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 364 days in jail. On July 1, 2004, the court entered a judgment of conviction. Defendant did not make a direct appeal. In May 2014, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advised defendant he was subject to removal from the United States. The DHS cited two reasons for defendant's removal: his 2004 conviction, and another conviction in 2014 for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest. On May 30, 2017, defendant filed a petition for PCR in the trial court. He asserted that the petition was not barred by Rule 3:22-12 even though he filed it almost thirteen years after the entry of the judgment of conviction. He claimed he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his plea counsel A-3853-17T4 2 allegedly misinformed him concerning the immigration consequences of his plea. He also contended counsel failed to correct statements concerning his immigration status in the plea agreement and presentence report. On January 26, 2018, Judge Michele M. Fox heard oral argument, and then placed a comprehensive oral decision on the record. The judge determined defendant failed to establish that his failure to file a timely petition was due to excusable neglect, or that enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice. As a result, the judge concluded that Rule 3:22-12 applied, barring defendant's petition. Nevertheless, Judge Fox went on to address the merits of defendant's petition and found he had not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The judge explained that when defendant entered his plea, the law was unsettled as to whether conviction of terroristic threats under New Jersey law could result in deportation ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals