NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0873-18T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROGER D. COLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Submitted April 29, 2020 – Decided June 23, 2020 Before Judges Whipple and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment Nos. 10-10-1092 and 13-07-0726. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Roger Coley appeals from the August 22, 2018 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) after an evidentiary hearing. We previously set forth the facts in defendant's first PCR appeal in State v. Coley, No. A-0905-16 (App. Div. April 11, 2018), where we remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defense counsel provided false or misleading advice as to the impact defendant's United States born children would have on the likelihood of deportation and if so, whether the information caused defendant to plead guilty. After a review of the arguments in light of the record and applicable principles of law, we affirm. On August 22, 2018, the parties appeared before the court for the remand hearing. Defendant, represented by counsel in the courtroom, appeared by way of an audiovisual phone call. Defendant's plea counsel, William Rohr , testified that although he had no independent recollection of defendant's case, he reviewed some notes he retained. Rohr's notes reflected he knew defendant was a U.S. resident from Jamaica who came on a six-month work permit, overstayed his visa and had an immigration detainer against him. Rohr testified it was his understanding that defendant was going to be deported for overstaying his visa. Rohr also testified the transcript of defendant's plea hearing reflected he A-0873-18T1 2 discussed with defendant that he would be deported after completion of his prison sentence. Under questioning from the court, Rohr stated: I mean, taking into consideration the fact that my . . . perception at the time was he was going to get deported because he was undocumented. If you add to that the fact that he's now pleading guilty to three charges, that's going to enhance the potential for documentation. And I think I'd have to have some insight into immigration law in order to counteract and say regardless of the fact that . . . the immigration authority . . . has a detainer . . . against you and apparently want to deport you, that you should disregard that because there's always a potential that you may not be deported. That's not the kind of conversation I ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals