NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2797-18 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHAN MOYA-TINEO, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted January 20, 2021 – Decided March 12, 2021 Before Judges Fisher and Gilson. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 08-10-1445. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Anderson D. Harkov, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alanna M. Jereb, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Johan Moya-Tineo appeals from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following oral argument but without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to adequately advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. He also argues that because he did not fully understand the immigration consequences, his plea was not given knowingly and intelligently. We reject these arguments and affirm. I. In 2008, defendant was indicted for second and third-degree drug-related charges. On February 18, 2009, defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a). Before pleading guilty, defendant, with the assistance of counsel, filled out the then-standard plea form, which included two questions concerning defendant's immigration status. First, defendant was asked whether he was a United States citizen, which defendant stated he was not. Second, he was asked whether he was aware that his guilty plea may subject him to deportation, which defendant stated he understood. Defendant spoke Spanish. Accordingly, the plea form he filled out was in Spanish and English and a Spanish interpreter translated the communications A-2797-18 2 between defendant and his counsel. The interpreter also translated everything during the plea hearing. During the plea hearing, defendant's counsel confirmed with defendant that they had reviewed all the questions on the plea form, defendant supplied the answers, and counsel had accurately recorded defendant's answers on the form. Counsel also confirmed that defendant was satisfied with his legal services. Defendant was then questioned by Judge Marilyn C. Clark. Judge Clark confirmed with defendant that he understood that by pleading guilty he "could face deportation." Judge Clark also asked defendant whether he understood that the crime he was pleading guilty to "is considered to be extremely serious by the immigration department and [he] may well be deported." Defendant responded yes, he understood that consequence. Finally, after confirming that defendant was a permanent resident, Judge Clark asked whether he understood he "could be deported and, if not, [he] could be turned down for citizenship." Defendant again responded yes; he understood those consequences. In July 2009, consistent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals