STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LORENZO SOLOMANÂ (09-07-1492, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2407-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LORENZO SOLOMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted May 25, 2017 - Decided June 28, 2017
Before Judges Lihotz and Hoffman.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No.
09-07-1492.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary R.
Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
on the brief; Vanessa L. Coleman, Legal
Assistant, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Lorenzo Soloman appeals from an April 21, 2015
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR),
without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I
THE ORDER DENYING [PCR] SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
THE MATTER REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ADVISE
DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES THAT HIS GUILTY
PLEA WOULD HAVE ON HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS AND OTHER SERVICES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SATISFIED PRIMA
FACIE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
CRITERIA.
POINT II
DEFENDANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL
BECAUSE APPELLATE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO
PRESENT DEFENDANT'S APPEAL BEFORE THE
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE PANEL INSTEAD OF PURSUING
A PLENARY APPEAL DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN DENYING THE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN
THE SENTENCE IN ORDER TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO BE
ASSIGNED TO PRESENT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.
POINT III
THE ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATED
DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We affirm.
2 A-2407-15T1
Defendant negotiated a guilty plea. The State agreed to
amend a charge for second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count
one) to third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)(d), and amend a
charge for second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1)
(count two) to third-degree aggravated assault. At sentencing,
defendant requested an adjournment to file a motion to withdraw
his guilty plea, asserting as a developmentally disabled adult the
consequences of the guilty plea were not understandably explained
to him by counsel. The request was opposed by the State, not only
because of a detailed factual basis taken when the plea was entered
two months earlier following an examination of defendant's mental
capacity, but also because defendant learned the victim passed
away, prejudicing the State's ability to prove his guilt. Further,
the judge noted one month earlier defendant was interviewed in
preparation of the pre-sentence report. He explained he remembered
exactly what he stated when he pled guilty, and was "standing by"
those statements. Defendant made no mention of desiring to
withdraw his plea, uttered no suggestion he did not understand the
process or counsel's advice, nor did he assert counsel provided
ineffective assistance.
The judge imposed sentence substantially as recommended by
the plea agreement: on each count, thirty-eight days in the county
jail, which had been served, and three years probation, the two
3 A-2407-15T1
sentences to run concurrently with each other and concurrent to a
municipal court sentence in Asbury Park. Applicable fines and
penalties were imposed.
Defendant appealed from the imposed sentence. We affirmed
after review on this court's excessive sentencing oral argument
calendar, R. 2:9-11, on May 14, 2010.
Defendant filed a timely petition for PCR. Counsel was
appointed and the trial judge conducted a hearing. See State v.
Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 275 (2012). PCR was denied for the reason
stated in a sixteen-page written opinion by Judge Ronald L.
Reisner, which we have reviewed in light of defendant's arguments,
the record, and applicable law.
Defendant's assertion of "negative consequences" adversely
impacting his housing and employment assistance for the
developmentally disabled does not support the first of the two-
prong test required for PCR. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984);
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). The trial judge considered
defendant's mental status, which was investigated and verified
prior to plea and discussed at this hearing. Counsel communicated
with the Division of Developmental Disabilities and information
was provided related to the criminal matter. Defendant does not
articulate what issues, if any, counsel failed to address. Nor
4 A-2407-15T1
does he describe adverse effects he suffered as a consequence of
his plea.
Also, where defendant's allegations "are too vague,
conclusory or speculative . . . an evidentiary hearing need not
be granted." State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158, cert. denied,
522 U.S. 850, 118 S. Ct. 140, 139 L. Ed. 2d. 88 (1997) (citations
omitted).
We find no merit to the arguments presented by defendant in
this appeal. R. 2:3-11(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by Judge Reisner in his opinion.
Affirmed.
5 A-2407-15T1