NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0847-19T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REINIS GURVICS, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Submitted October 21, 2020 – Decided November 18, 2020 Before Judges Whipple and Rose. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 09-01-0224. Michael Pastacaldi, attorney for appellant. Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant, Reinis Gurvics, appeals from an October 2, 2019, order reinstating his conviction on remand and denying an evidentiary hearing on his requested post-conviction relief (PCR). On October 29, 2010, defendant, a permanent resident of the United States who was born in Latvia, plead guilty to one count of third-degree possession with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), heroin, within 1,000 feet of a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. During his plea colloquy, defendant was asked if he "would have given the [CDS] to somebody else[.]" While defendant initially answered "no," upon further questioning, defendant admitted he intended to distribute the CDS. First, the plea judge asked defendant if he could read and write in English and defendant answered "yes." Next, the judge asked defendant if he was a United States citizen, and defendant testified he was not a citizen, but did have a green card. Because of this, the judge informed defendant he could be subject to deportation as a result of the guilty plea. At that point, counsel interjected and told the judge he had discussed the issue with defendant. Further, defendant checked off question seventeen-(c) on his plea form, indicating he was aware he could potentially be deported. And ultimately, defendant testified he understood the plea agreement. A-0847-19T4 2 The court sentenced defendant on February 4, 2011. Prior to the hearing, the State reported to the judge that defendant disputed the version of events contained in the presentence report, saying: "[s]ome part I do remember, some part I don't remember. I was intoxicated on beer and weed." However, during the sentencing hearing, defendant reaffirmed the factual basis he previously provided. After the hearing, defendant was sentenced to two years' probation and successfully completed his sentence. On April 25, 2018, defendant filed a petition for PCR and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because his conviction prompted the Department of Homeland Security to file removal proceedings on August 24, 2016. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Defendant submitted two certifications in support of his PCR petition. In the first certification, dated April 19, 2018, defendant asserted his plea hearing counsel was ineffective because his attorney did not advise him of the immigration consequences that arise from a guilty plea. In the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals