STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELMAN MARROQUIN (16-05-0284, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3139-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ELMAN MARROQUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted October 6, 2020 – Decided December 28, 2020
Before Judges Mawla and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 16-05-
0284.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (John J. Bannon, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Amanda Frankel, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Elman Marroquin appeals from an October 5, 2018 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) following an evidentiary
hearing and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He also appeals from a
December 20, 2018 order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Defendant claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective
because he failed to: 1) discuss with him all available defenses; 2) review the
State's discovery with him; 3) warn about his maximum sentencing exposure,
including the immigration consequence of any plea; and 4) advise that he could
accept pretrial intervention (PTI), or proceed to trial in lieu of his plea deal.
Defendant also moved to vacate his plea primarily contending that it was neither
voluntary nor knowing as he failed to provide a sufficient factual basis to support
the charges. We disagree with all of these arguments and affirm.
I.
Defendant was arrested after he got into a drunken altercation with his
brother and pulled out a box cutter. After the fight was interrupted by a
bystander, responding officers arrived and asked defendant to drop the box
cutter but he did not immediately comply. Defendant was arrested and charged
with: 1) third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2); 2) third-
degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d);
A-3139-18T4
2
and 3) fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d). He
was also issued a summons for resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(1), a
disorderly persons offense.
Defendant applied for admission into the PTI program, a request that was
initially recommended and not opposed by the State. As a condition of his
admission to PTI, however, defendant was required to plead guilty to the
charges. Although defendant completed the necessary plea forms, he did not
plead guilty at the scheduled plea hearing. Instead, he maintained his innocence
and requested the opportunity to consult with an immigration attorney.
After defendant spoke with an immigration attorney, he resubmitted his
plea forms and pled guilty to amended charges of: 1) simple assault, N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1(a)(3); 2) disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a)(1); 3) fourth-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d); and 4) resisting arrest,
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a).
At the plea hearing, defendant admitted his guilt and no longer claimed he
was innocent of the charges. He also stated that he was entering the plea
voluntarily and that nobody "pressure[d him], coerce[d him], or place[d him]
under duress, or und[ue] influence."
A-3139-18T4
3
In addition, the following colloquy occurred regarding the immigration
consequences of defendant's plea:
COURT: Do you understand that as a result of your
guilty plea that you are substantially likely to be
deported?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: This court, as a state court, has no[] authority
over immigration matters.
DEFENDANT: I understand that.
COURT: It will be up to [f]ederal immigration
authorities to decide whether or not you should be
deported, after you have a hearing.
DEFENDANT: I understand that.
COURT: Have you had an opportunity to speak with
an immigration attorney, or do you wish to do so, prior
to completing your guilty plea here today?
DEFENDANT: I've spoken to one already.
COURT: Therefore, you're ready to proceed at this
time with your guilty plea, after you had the
opportunity to already speak with an immigration
lawyer, is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: While I do not know what, if any, action will
be taken by the immigration authorities, any defendant
who pleads in front of this court is always told that you
A-3139-18T4
4
should assume that you will be deported as a result of
your plea. Do you understand that warning, sir?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
With regard to the factual basis for defendant's plea, defendant's counsel
and the court elicited the following facts:
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: . . . [O]n April 7th, 2016[,] at
approximately 11 p.m. were you in possession of an
item that's depicted in the photograph marked as
Exhibit D-1, that's here before you?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And this photograph D-1 depicts
a utility knife that you normally carried with you for
work purposes?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And at approximately 11 p.m. on
April 7, 2016[,] you were in possession of that utility
knife not for work purposes, is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: On the evening that we just
mentioned did you have an argument with the victim at
16 Clairmont Road in Bernardsville at the time we just
described?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: At that time did you intend to
frighten or scare the victim in this case?
A-3139-18T4
5
DEFENDANT: I was trying to frighten him, yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: At that time, and at that place,
did you cause a disturbance by having an argument with
the victim?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And at some point the police
came, is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Correct.
[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And after the police came they
requested that you approach them and you did not
immediately comply, is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Correct.
....
COURT: . . . Mr. Marroquin, did you in the course of
an argument with the victim on April 7th, 2016, in
Bernardsville, . . . hold up a box cutter in a manner that
you put the victim in fear of imminent serious bodily
injury?
....
DEFENDANT: Yes.1
1
We note that the transcript reveals that the interpreter initially incorrectly
translated the court's question as to whether defendant put his brother in fear of
imminent serious bodily injury by using the Spanish word for death. We are
satisfied that the interpreter, upon immediate request from the court and trial
counsel, rectified this mistake and posed the appropriate question to defendant.
In this regard, the interpreter's statement, "I will rectify for the record," was
followed by defendant's affirmative response.
A-3139-18T4
6
Defendant was sentenced to two years of probation, community service,
and ordered to participate in substance abuse, anger management and
psychological evaluations, and complete any recommended treatment. He was
credited with 204 days of jail credit and immediately released from custody.
Upon his release, defendant was detained by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) representatives and eventually deported to
Guatemala.
Defendant never filed a direct appeal of his convictions or sentence.
While in ICE's custody, defendant filed an initial and amended PCR petition
which was supplemented by a supporting brief by appointed PCR counsel.
Defendant alleged his counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), and State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58
(1987), based on the four separate bases previously noted. Defendant also filed
a motion to vacate his plea.
In a June 5, 2018 order, the PCR court granted defendant's request for an
evidentiary hearing. The PCR court found that a limited hearing was necessary
to further assess whether the advice counsel gave defendant regarding the
immigration consequences of his plea "was negated by conversations that
A-3139-18T4
7
occurred off the record" and whether trial counsel "pressured" defendant to take
the plea agreement.
On October 5, 2018, the PCR court denied defendant's PCR petition and
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In a corresponding written opinion, the
PCR court specifically rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel
claim based on counsel's alleged failure to warn about the immigration
consequences of his plea. It "critically" found that defendant testified that he
"was informed by immigration counsel that he would be deported if he accepted
the plea deal, that he was fully aware of the immigration consequences of the
plea, he understood that he would be deported if he accepted the plea, and that
he decided to accept the plea nonetheless." As a result, the court found
"[defendant] was not given misleading advice about . . . deportation."
The PCR court also found the factual basis for defendant's plea was
sufficient and noted that the plea colloquy established defendant "was in
possession of a utility knife and used it in a manner to cause the victim to fear
imminent bodily injury." Further, the PCR court found "[t]he
circumstances . . . make it apparent that [d]efendant knew he was being
arrested" and thus satisfied the elements of the resisting arrest charge.
A-3139-18T4
8
The court also concluded at the time of defendant's plea he "ha[d] not
made a colorable claim of innocence." Finally, the PCR court noted that
defendant "gave sworn testimony that he was entering a free and voluntary plea"
and concluded defendant did not establish that he was "misled or coerced into
taking the plea deal."
Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration relying on State v. Vasco,
456 N.J. Super. 382 (2017), rev'd on dissent, 235 N.J. 365 (2018), which the
Supreme Court decided shortly after the PCR court's October 5, 2018 decision.
The court denied the motion after hearing oral arguments in a December 20,
2018 order and corresponding opinion. The PCR court found defendant's
"reliance on [Vasco] misplaced as [defendant] did admit to the circumstances
necessary to establish his guilt," which went "far beyond the defendant in
Vasco."
On appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I
BECAUSE DEFENDANT RECEIVED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE
PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S
PETITION FOR PCR.
A. [LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING
APPLICATIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF.
A-3139-18T4
9
B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO ADVISE MR.
MARROQUIN OF HIS DEFENSES, FAILED
TO REVIEW DISCOVERY WITH MR.
MARROQUIN, MISINFORMED MR.
MARROQUIN OF HIS MAXIMUM
EXPOSURE IF CONVICTED, AND
INAPPROPRIATELY ADVISED MR.
MARROQUIN TO PLEAD GUILTY RATHER
THAN ACCEPTING PTI OR PROCEEDING
TO TRIAL].
POINT II
BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A
KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY
PLEA, THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR PCR.
A. [LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING
APPLICATIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF.
B. DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A KNOWING,
INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY GUILTY
PLEA WITH A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL
BASIS].
II.
"Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of
habeas corpus." State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 576 (2015) (quoting State v.
Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992)). It serves as a safeguard to ensure that a
A-3139-18T4
10
criminal defendant was not unfairly convicted and is the "last line of defense
against a miscarriage of justice." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 526 (2013).
Our review of a PCR claim after a court has held an evidentiary hearing
"is necessarily deferential to [the] PCR court's factual findings based on its
review of live witness testimony." Nash, 212 N.J. at 540. Where an evidentiary
hearing has been held, we should not disturb "the PCR court's findings that are
supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." Pierre, 223 N.J. at 576
(citations omitted). We review any legal conclusions of the trial court de novo.
Nash, 212 N.J. at 540-41; State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004).
As relevant here, one ground for post-conviction relief asks whether there
has been a "[s]ubstantial denial in the conviction proceedings of defendant's
rights under the Constitution of the United States or the [c]onstitution or laws
of the State of New Jersey." R. 3:22-2(a). A criminal defendant's right to
counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
article I, paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution, includes the right to
adequate legal advice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58.
To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the
defendant is obliged to show not only the particular manner in which counsel's
performance was deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced his right to a
A-3139-18T4
11
fair trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 58. The United States
Supreme Court has extended these principles to a criminal defense attorney's
representation of an accused in connection with a plea negotiation. Lafler v.
Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162-63 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 143-44
(2012).
There is a strong presumption that counsel "rendered adequate assistance
and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional
judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Further, because prejudice is not
presumed, Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52, the defendant must demonstrate "how specific
errors of counsel undermined the reliability" of the proceeding. United States
v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.26 (1984).
In order to establish the Strickland prejudice prong to set aside a guilty
plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must also show
"there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [defendant]
would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v.
DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59
(1985)). Moreover, "a [defendant] must convince the court that a decision to
reject the plea bargain" and "insist on going to trial" would have been "rational
under the circumstances." State v. Maldon, 422 N.J. Super. 475, 486 (App. Div.
A-3139-18T4
12
2011) (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010)). That
determination should be "based on evidence, not speculation." Ibid.As noted, defendant points to four separate errors committed by his trial
counsel that deprived him of his Sixth Amendment rights, "if not individually,
then cumulatively." We discuss each claim separately and conclude defendant
failed to satisfy either the performance or prejudice prong of the Strickland test.
A. Failure to discuss defenses.
Defendant argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient
because he never discussed all available defenses with him. Specifically,
defendant contends discovery supported viable claims that he: 1) acted in self-
defense; 2) did not possess the requisite criminal intent based on his
intoxication; and 3) was in lawful possession of the boxcutter. In support,
defendant points to his testimony before the PCR court and his statements to the
police that his brother "broke [some beer] bottles and then . . . pushed [defendant
a] couple times." Defendant also claims a bystander "came from nowhere" and
threw him against a dumpster. Defendant argues these facts created a cognizable
claim of self-defense because he pulled out the box cutter to defend against his
drunken brother's actions and from an unknown assailant. We reject defendant's
arguments for two reasons.
A-3139-18T4
13
First, at the evidentiary hearing, defendant's trial counsel testified that he
discussed with defendant his alleged "innocen[ce]" and "possible defenses" and
decided to assert a "factual defense." Counsel further explained that he intended
to focus on the fact that the box cutter "was not a deadly weapon that [defendant]
was holding. That he had no intent. That it wasn't used in any of the incidents
as alleged." We glean from the court's denial of defendant's petition that it
rejected defendant's testimony and credited that of his trial counsel.
Second, we conclude trial counsel's strategic decision to ultimately plead
guilty exhibited "reasonable professional judgement." Strickland, 466 U.S. at
690. As the PCR court noted, defendant "fail[ed] to establish a colorable claim
of self-defense." Indeed, use of the box cutter to put defendant's brother in fear
of serious bodily injury was a disproportionate response to the altercation. See
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4.
B. Failure to review discovery.
With respect to counsel's alleged failure to review discovery with him,
defendant specifically claims that his trial counsel "never reviewed [the audio
of his brother]'s statement to the police with him."2 Defendant asserts that the
2
Several weeks after defendant was arrested, the police conducted an interview
of his brother in Spanish. This interview was summarized in English in the
A-3139-18T4
14
paper discovery was not an "honest narrative of the statement of [his brother]"
because it was "inaccurate, misleading, and self-serving."
During the evidentiary hearing, however, trial counsel stated he did
review all necessary discovery materials with defendant but that he was unable
to play any audio recording for defendant because he was not permitted to bring
his laptop to the jail where defendant was incarcerated. While trial counsel
admitted to not translating the brother's statement to the police from Spanish to
English, he did review with defendant the prosecutor's "paper discovery," which
would have included the report from the State summarizing his brother's
statement.
Moreover, we note there is no material conflict between the summary in
the investigation report and the translation of the brother's statement to the
police in the record. While defendant's brother started the interview by denying
the presence of a box cutter, he then recanted that statement at the end of the
interview and stated defendant did possess the box cutter and that it was pointed
at his throat.
C. Failure to advise about sentencing exposure.
prosecutor's investigation report. The audio recording was eventually
transcribed into English for purposes of defendant's PCR petition and was
available in the record for our review.
A-3139-18T4
15
Defendant also asserts his trial counsel failed to inform him of his
maximum sentencing exposure if convicted, including "the collateral
immigration consequences." Defendant specifically argues that trial counsel
"failed in his obligation to explain the matter [of deportation] to [defendant] t o
the extent reasonably necessary to permit him to make informed decisions." See
State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 140-43 (2009) (holding counsel is
ineffective where advice given to a defendant regarding the removal
consequences of a guilty plea is "false," or "inaccurate" and affirmatively
"misleading").
As noted, the PCR court concluded "[defendant] was not given misleading
advice about . . . deportation." This finding was fully supported by sufficient
credible evidence in the record, particularly the colloquy from the plea hearing.
See Pierre, 223 N.J. at 576. Indeed, defendant admitted to speaking with an
immigration attorney and that she answered all his questions. The record
establishes that defendant was warned multiple times that deportation was
substantially likely to occur based on his plea.
D. Failure to advise regarding PTI and ability to proceed to trial.
Defendant's claim that his trial counsel failed to advise him regarding the
availability of the PTI program or his ability to proceed to trial is also belied by
A-3139-18T4
16
the record. Indeed, defendant was fully aware of the option of entering the PTI
program as it was discussed at the first plea hearing, which did not conclude as
defendant initially proclaimed his innocence and requested to speak with
immigration counsel.
In sum, we conclude defendant has failed to satisfy either the performance
or prejudice prong under Strickland for all four of his ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. Further, defendant has failed to show it would have been
rational to forego his guilty plea and proceed to trial under the circumstances.
Maldon, 422 N.J. Super. at 486.
III.
In his second argument, defendant claims that the court should have
granted his petition and vacated his entire plea due to his failure to provide an
adequate factual basis for the unlawful possession of a weapon and resisting
arrest charges. Defendant also claims the court committed error when it denied
his request to vacate his plea under State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 150 (2009).
We disagree with these arguments.
Where, as here, the application to withdraw a guilty plea is made after
sentencing, a defendant must demonstrate that a "manifest injustice" occurred.
Slater, 198 N.J. at 158 (citing R. 3:21-1). "[E]fforts to withdraw a plea after
A-3139-18T4
17
sentencing must be substantiated by strong, compelling reasons." Id. at 160.
Courts considering post-sentencing motions apply "a more stringent standard"
and "weigh[] more heavily the State's interest in finality." State v. McQuaid,
147 N.J. 464, 487 (1997). Moreover, "[i]n the PCR context, to obtain relief from
a conviction following a plea, 'a petitioner must convince the court that a
decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the
circumstances.'" State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351, 371 (App. Div. 2014)
(quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372).
In Slater, the Supreme Court delineated a four-factor balancing test to
guide courts in exercising their discretion to set aside guilty pleas. 3 Id. at 157-
58. The Court in State v. Tate, however, instructed "when the issue is solely
whether an adequate factual basis supports a guilty plea, a Slater analysis is
unnecessary." 220 N.J. 393, 404 (2015) (citations omitted). Such an issue is
3
These factors are:
(1) whether the defendant has asserted a colorable
claim of innocence; (2) the nature and strength of
defendant's reasons for withdrawal; (3) the existence of
a plea bargain; and (4) whether withdrawal would result
in unfair prejudice to the State or unfair advantage to
the accused.
[Slater, 198 N.J. at 150.]
A-3139-18T4
18
reviewed de novo, because "[a]n appellate court is in the same position as the
trial court in assessing whether the factual admissions during a plea colloquy
satisfy the essential elements of an offense." Ibid.In recognition of a defendant's constitutional
protections, when he or she decides to plead guilty and
waive the right to a trial, the court "must be convinced
that (1) the defendant has provided an adequate factual
basis for the plea; (2) the plea is made voluntarily; and
(3) the plea is made knowingly."
[State v. Gregory, 220 N.J. 413, 418 (2015) (quoting
State v. Lipa, 219 N.J. 323, 331 (2014)); see also R.
3:9-2.]
The factual basis for the plea can be established in either of two ways:
"defendant may either explicitly admit guilt with respect to the elements or may
'acknowledge[] . . . [underlying] facts constituting the essential elements of the
crime.'" State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218, 231 (2013) (citation omitted); see
also Gregory, 220 N.J. at 419-20. As the Supreme Court stated in State v. Sainz,
107 N.J. 283, 292 (1987), "[t]he essential thing is that the defendant is in fact
guilty of the crime for which he is being sentenced."
A factual basis for unlawful possession of a weapon exists when: 1) there
is a weapon; 2) that defendant possessed knowingly; and 3) "under
circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses." N.J.S.A. 2C:39-
5(d). Circumstances that are not manifestly appropriate include a threat of harm
A-3139-18T4
19
to persons. State ex rel. G.C., 179 N.J. 475, 480-81 (2004). Additionally, a
factual basis for resisting arrest exists when: 1) there was a law enforcement
officer; 2) effecting an arrest; 3) that defendant knew or had reason to know that
the officer was effecting an arrest; and 4) defendant "purposely prevent[ed]" the
officer from effecting the arrest. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a); see also State v. Simms,
369 N.J. Super. 466, 470 (App. Div. 2004).
Here, defendant stated in his plea colloquy that it was his voluntary
decision to enter the plea agreement, he was guilty of the charges, and nobody
pressured, coerced, or placed him under duress or undue influence. Further,
defendant admitted to facts that established a factual basis for a conviction of
unlawful possession of a weapon. In the plea colloquy, defendant stated he was
carrying a box cutter and that he was "in [its] possession . . . not for work
purposes." Defendant also admitted he used the box cutter to "put [his brother]
in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." These are circumstances that are not
"manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses." See N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d).
Defendant relies on State v. Blain, 221 N.J. Super. 66, 70 (App. Div.
1987), State v. Riley, 306 N.J. Super. 141, 143-45 (App. Div. 1997), and Vasco,
456 N.J. Super. at 395 (Espinosa, J., dissenting), for the proposition that mere
possession of a weapon is not sufficient to support a factual basis for unlawful
A-3139-18T4
20
possession. Unlike these cases, and as noted, defendant admitted to facts that
show circumstances "not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses" by using
the box cutter to threaten his brother.
We also conclude defendant provided a sufficient factual basis for the
resisting arrest charges. Defendant admitted during his plea colloquy that the
police arrived because of a fight with his brother and that "[the police] requested
that [he] approach them and [that he] did not immediately comply."
Further, we consider the plea colloquy as a whole. See Gregory, 220 N.J.
at 420 (holding courts may look at "surrounding circumstances" from
"stipulations and facts admitted or adopted by the defendant" (citations
omitted)). In this regard, defendant possessed the box cutter when the officers
arrived and admitted he failed to comply with their ensuing instructions after
intentionally using the box cutter to threaten his brother. We can infer from
these facts that defendant had reason to know the officers arrived to effectuate
an arrest. See, e.g., State v. Branch, 301 N.J. Super. 307, 321 (App. Div. 1997)
(noting "[t]he failure to announce that defendant was under arrest would only be
A-3139-18T4
21
one factor to be considered in the overall sequence of events leading to " a
resisting arrest charge), rev'd on other grounds, 155 N.J. 317, 319 (1998). 4
Defendant's reliance on State v. Ashley, 443 N.J. Super. 10, 22-23 (App.
Div. 2015), is misplaced. Unlike the defendant in Ashley who sought to
withdraw his plea on direct appeal, defendant seeks relief by way of a PCR
petition, which requires defendant to show a substantial denial of his
constitutional or legal rights. R. 3:22-2(a); see also O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super.
at 368-73 (reviewing distinctions between motion to withdraw plea and petition
for PCR). Here, defendant did not assert a claim of innocence contemporaneous
to his plea, and we conclude his conviction does not constitute a deprivation of
his constitutional rights under the circumstances presented.
Finally, defendant argues even if we find he provided a sufficient factual
basis, the PCR court erred in refusing to vacate his plea under the Slater factors.
4
We observe that defendant relies on Vasco, 456 N.J. Super. at 395 (Espinosa,
J., dissenting), for the proposition that a court reviewing a plea colloquy may
not rely on information outside of the facts elicited at the plea hearing. In his
merits brief, however, defendant inconsistently relies on the responding officers'
investigation reports. These reports indicate defendant refused to put down the
box cutter after a responding officer pointed a gun at him and defendant started
to approach the officer. The reports also indicate defendant pulled away from
officers when they attempted to handcuff him. As we have concluded that the
plea colloquy provided a sufficient factual basis, we have not considered these
reports in our analysis.
A-3139-18T4
22
After balancing all four of the Slater factors, we determine under this record that
defendant has not met his burden of substantiating his request with "strong,
compelling reasons." Slater, 198 N.J. at 160. Defendant has not shown that the
denial of his motion was manifestly unjust, overcoming the "formidable barrier"
created by the acceptance of his guilty plea. Id. at 156 (quoting Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977)).
To the extent we have not addressed any of defendant's remaining
arguments, it is because we have determined they are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-3139-18T4
23