STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS ROJAS (12-09-1046, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: November 20, 2017
• Docket: A-4358-14T2
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4385-14T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA T. STALLS,

Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________

Submitted October 26, 2016 – Decided March 6, 2017

Before Judges Accurso and Manahan.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Accusation No. 13-04-0218.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Joshua Stalls appeals from a Law Division order

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) after oral

argument and an evidentiary hearing. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned,

sixteen-page written opinion of Judge Bernadette N. DeCastro. We

add only the following.

Defendant was charged in Hudson County by accusation with one

count of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A.

2C:24-4(a). Defendant was also charged by complaint with one

count of aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), and

two counts of child abuse, N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and 6-3. The minor

victim of these sexual offenses was defendant's dance student and

family friend.

In November 2012, the victim's mother reported to the Jersey

City Police that her daughter appeared uncomfortable and had been

scratching her vaginal area. In response to her questioning, the

victim stated that on multiple occasions, while she stayed at

defendant's residence, defendant reached into her underwear and

rubbed her vagina.

In April 2013, defendant entered a guilty plea to second-

degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4. The

remaining counts of the complaint were dismissed. Defendant

admitted that between September and November 2012, and while

responsible for her care, he committed certain sexual acts upon

the victim. At sentencing, defendant received a five-year flat

term in state prison, in accordance with the plea agreement.

2 A-4385-14T1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, in addition to the applicable

fines and fees, the court imposed the requirements under Megan's

Law, Nicole's Law, and parole supervision for life. Defendant did

not file a direct appeal.

Defendant filed a self-represented petition, which was

supplemented after he was assigned counsel. In the petition,

defendant argued his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance.

After hearing oral argument, the judge held defendant was entitled

to an evidentiary hearing.

The evidentiary hearing took place over four days. The

hearing was limited to whether plea counsel incorrectly informed

defendant there was evidence of penetration. During the hearing,

defendant, defendant's mother, and Dr. Robert Berman, an expert

in the field of general gynecology, testified for the defense.

Defendant's plea counsel testified on behalf of the State. After

reviewing the submissions, the judge issued a written opinion

denying the PCR petition. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following point:

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE PCR COURT MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE PLEA COUNSEL MISADVISED DEFENDANT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the

federal writ of habeas corpus." State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583,

3 A-4385-14T1 593 (2002) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992)).

The test for ineffective assistance of counsel was formulated in

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed.

2d 674 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz,

105 N.J. 42 (1987). To establish a deprivation of the Sixth

Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, a defendant

must satisfy the following two-pronged Strickland test: (1) that

counsel's performance was deficient and he or she made errors that

were so serious that counsel was not functioning effectively as

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution; and (2) that there exists a "reasonable probability

that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different." Strickland, supra, 466

U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698.

A defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel

rendered reasonable professional assistance. State v. Parker, 212

N.J. 269, 279 (2012) (citations omitted). If a defendant

establishes one prong of this test, but not the other, the petition

for PCR must fail. Id. at 280 (citing State v. Echols, 100 N.J.

344, 358 (2009)). Thus, both prongs of the Strickland test must

be satisfied before post-conviction relief may be granted.

Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 80 L. Ed.

2d at 693.

4 A-4385-14T1 Both the United States Supreme Court and the New Jersey

Supreme Court have extended the Strickland test to challenges of

guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Lafler

v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162-63, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384-85, 182 L.

Ed. 2d 398, 406-07 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 140,

132 S. Ct. 1399, 1405, 182 L. Ed. 2d 379, 387 (2012); State v.

DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456-57 (1994).

When petitioning for PCR, the defendant must establish by a

preponderance of the credible evidence that he or she is entitled

to the requested relief. Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 459. To

sustain that burden, the defendant must allege and articulate

specific facts which "provide the court with an adequate basis on

which to rest its decision." State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579

(1992).

Our review of an order granting or denying PCR contains

consideration of mixed questions of law and fact. State v. Harris,

181 N.J. 391, 415-16 (2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145, 125 S.

Ct. 2973, 162 L. Ed. 2d 898 (2005). We defer to a PCR court's

factual findings and will uphold those findings that are "supported

by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Nash,

212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013). However, a PCR court's interpretations

of law are provided no deference and are reviewed de novo. Id.

at 540-41.

5 A-4385-14T1 On appeal, defendant argues that the judge erred by failing

to find his plea counsel was ineffective for: (1) falsely informing

him that the State had evidence of penetration; (2) failing to

explain Megan's Law tier classifications; and (3) incorrectly

telling defendant his incarceration would not exceed sixteen

months. Thus, defendant contends he was misled by plea counsel

and induced into accepting the plea agreement. We disagree.

In her decision, the judge addressed defendant's argument

that he was "misadvised" as to the evidence of penetration:

[Defendant] claims that plea counsel incorrectly advised him that there was evidence of penetration which is an element of first-degree aggravated sexual assault. The [c]ourt finds that plea counsel's review of [defendant's] case was reasonable and he properly advised [defendant] that if the State presented the case to the [g]rand [j]ury he would be charged with first[-]degree aggravated sexual assault, for which sexual penetration is an element. At the evidentiary hearing, [plea counsel] credibly testified that he reviewed the discovery he received with [defendant] as well as the law pertaining to first[-]degree aggravated assault. [Plea counsel] had received a copy of both the child's and mother's fresh complaint statement, a video of [defendant]'s statement, and the physical evidence, i.e. the forensic sexual assault examination. The [c]ourt does not find [defendant's] testimony that [plea counsel] would not tell him how he knew there was penetration credible, especially in light of his own admission that he was aware that the child had undergone a forensic examination. Rather, [defendant's] claims that plea counsel refused to tell him the

6 A-4385-14T1 source of the information that there was evidence of penetration are self-serving in nature. It is clear to the [c]ourt that [defendant] had several discussions with [plea counsel] regarding the State's ability to show penetration as well as about the State's evidence.

. . . .

In light of the State's evidence against [defendant], it is completely self-serving for him to now claim he would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial. Much was made about when [defendant] received the discovery in this pre-indictment case. [P]lea counsel testified that he reviewed all the discovery that was provided to him with [defendant] early in this case. Counsel was clear that he based his recommendations on the cumulative evidence in this case and not simply from one piece of evidence. The record is devoid of information indicating that [defendant] was dissatisfied with his attorney's advice or that he wished to proceed to trial because he believed he was innocent. In fact, [defendant] did not allege in his certification nor testify at the evidentiary hearing that he is innocent.

The [c]ourt notes that even if [defendant] were not charged with first[- ]degree aggravated sexual assault when the case went before the [g]rand [j]ury, he would have been charged with second-degree sexual assault pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b). Both of these offenses are subject to the No Early Release Act [(NERA)], which requires an offender serve at least eighty-five percent of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Here, [defendant] received the benefit of a pre- indictment plea to second[-]degree endangering the welfare of a child, which carries a potential sentence of up to ten

7 A-4385-14T1 years. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend a sentence of "five flat," which is at the bottom end of the second[-]degree range. In light of this very favorable plea offer and the State's evidence against [defendant], it is difficult for the [c]ourt to believe that [defendant] would have rejected the plea offer and proceeded to go to trial.

The judge then addressed defendant's Megan's Law argument:

Here, [defendant's] claim that he was uninformed about the requirements of Megan's Law is belied by the record. When [defendant] pled guilty, Judge Rose asked [defendant] if he reviewed and answered all of the questions in the supplemental plea forms for certain sexual offenses. [Defendant] responded in the affirmative. Included in the supplemental plea forms, which [defendant] affirmed that he understood were the registration requirements of Megan's Law, the community notification requirements, and that he will be subject to provisions and conditions of parole, including conditions appropriate to protect the public and foster rehabilitation, such as restrictions on where he lives and works. Additionally, Judge Rose specifically asked [defendant] if he understood that he would have to register for Megan's Law and Parole Supervision for Life to which [defendant] responded in the affirmative. Accordingly, [defendant] has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that plea counsel failed to inform [defendant] about Megan's Law.

Finally, the judge addressed defendant's argument regarding the

length of his sentence:

[Defendant's] claim that plea counsel misinformed him about the length of his sentence is similarly rejected. Specifically,

8 A-4385-14T1 [defendant] claims that he was told by plea counsel he would only serve sixteen months. In the plea forms, which [defendant] signed and reviewed with plea counsel, it clearly indicates that [defendant] was only promised a "[f]ive [f]lat." While plea counsel and [defendant] may have been hoping he would receive parole in [sixteen] months, this was not a promise or guarantee made by plea counsel as to what would indeed happen. Similarly, the [p]arole [b]oard cannot be bound by such an understanding.

We apply the Strickland standard and review the

reasonableness of counsel's assistance with "a heavy measure of

deference to counsel's judgments." State v. Martini, 160 N.J.

248, 266 (1999) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691, 104

S. Ct. at 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 695). The judge aptly applied

this standard and concluded that defendant's arguments did not

support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover,

plea counsel's alleged failure to advise defendant regarding the

consequences of the plea deal is supported only by self-serving

assertions and bare allegations. See State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

Super. 154, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999).

Here, we find counsel's performance with respect to his

representation of defendant — which included obtaining a favorable

plea agreement — was well within the minimum standard of effective

assistance of counsel.

9 A-4385-14T1 Similarly, we find no basis in the record to support

defendant's assertions that counsel was deficient or that he was

not functioning in a manner guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

See State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 349-50 (2012) (citation

omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1454, 185 L. Ed.

2d 361 (2013). Therefore, we conclude defendant has not made out

a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. See

Preciose, supra, 129 N.J. at 463.

Notwithstanding our determination as to the failure to make

out a prima facie case, we briefly address the second Strickland

prong. We hold with respect to the second prong, that defendant

has failed to demonstrate how any alleged deficiency resulted in

a prejudice that, "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the

result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland,

supra, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698;

Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 52 (citation omitted). When considering

the entire record, we are persuaded that the alleged deficiencies

here clearly fail to meet either the performance or the prejudice

prong of the Strickland test.

Affirmed.

10 A-4385-14T1