RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2954-18 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHANNS CUADROS, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted January 21, 2021 – Decided March 1, 2021 Before Judges Ostrer and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 99-01-0382 and 99-01-0383. Adam W. Toraya, attorney for appellant. Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Johanns Cuadros appeals from a January 29, 2019 denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Defendant was charged under separate indictments with two counts of second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(5). His victims were fourteen years old. Defendant pled guilty to amended charges of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b), regarding each victim. In exchange for his pleas, the State recommended that he receive a county jail sentence not to exceed 364 days, as a condition of probation, that he undergo counseling and not have contact with his victims. On May 26, 1999, he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to five years of probation, a 364-day jail term, no contact with his victims and counseling, along with the mandatory assessments. Defendant filed no direct appeal from his conviction or sentence. On November 28, 2016, while facing deportation, defendant collaterally challenged his seventeen-year-old judgment of conviction by filing a pro se petition for PCR. Defendant alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel, "as he was not advised of potential immigration consequences" r elated to his guilty pleas. PCR counsel amended defendant's petition in July 2018, alleging trial counsel was ineffective because he misadvised defendant about the A-2954-18 2 consequences of his guilty pleas. Specifically, defendant asserted his trial attorney told him not to worry about being deported since he was a lawful permanent resident and would be serving county jail, versus prison, time under his recommended sentence. In his amended petition, defendant also argued his guilty pleas were defective under Rule 3:9-2, because he did not realize his guilty pleas would lead to deportation, and he claimed his pleas resulted from the "the coercive conduct of trial counsel." Further, defendant contended he was entitled to withdraw his pleas under the Slater test1 and that the time bar on his petition should be relaxed, due to excusable neglect and because enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice. In November 2018, the PCR judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to address defendant's claims. Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing. He stated his testimony was based on his recollection, as he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals