STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEVEN GROHS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVEN GROHS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

January 28, 2015

Submitted January 21, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Manahan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 08-09-2769.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Steven Grohs, appeals from an order of the Law Division denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm the order denying defendant's PCR petition for the reasons stated in Judge Michele M. Fox's thorough oral decision of July 26, 2013. We add the following.

On September 9, 2008, a Camden County Grand Jury indicted defendant for second-degree attempting to lure or entice a child, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6; fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b; second-degree attempted sexual assault, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4); second-degree sexual assault, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4); third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a; and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b.

On December 15, 2008, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to second-degree attempting to lure or entice a child. On February 20, 2009, defendant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility. Defendant was to register and comply with Megan's Law and was subject to parole supervision for life.

On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General filed a petition under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26(b) seeking civil commitment of defendant under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). This was predicated upon defendant's conviction, as well as three Florida convictions for sex offenses against children.

On June 14, 2011, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR. Thereafter, assigned counsel filed a supporting brief. Defendant argues he made a prima facie showing that his plea attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him of the civil commitment consequences of his plea agreement. As such, defendant argues the PCR judge erred by denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing.

A "sexually violent offense" is defined under the SVPA as one of several enumerated crimes listed in N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26(a), or "any offense for which the court makes a specific finding on the record that, based on the circumstances of the case, the person's offense should be considered a sexually violent offense," N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26(b).

In State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127, 136-40 (2003), the Court noted that civil commitment pursuant to the SVPA is not a direct or penal consequence of a guilty plea for a sexual offense. Nevertheless, it held that "fundamental fairness requires that the trial court inform a defendant of the possible consequences under the [SVPA]." Id. at 138. The Court directed that "[i]n the future, prior to accepting a plea to a predicate offense under the [SVPA], the trial court should ensure that a defendant understands that, as a result of his or her plea, there is a possibility of future commitment." Id. at 139-40.

Here, during the plea colloquy, after the prosecutor recited the plea agreement and informed the court that the plea forms had been signed, counsel stated: "[Defendant has] also circled the 'Yes,' to the paragraph that explains Civil Commitment. So I believe that's everything, Judge." The judge questioned defendant further. Defendant acknowledged he signed the plea form and four-page supplemental plea form, went over them with his attorney, and understood everything. The judge explicitly noted, "if somebody wants to make a motion to have [defendant] civilly committed . . . . that's not an issue I'll be dealing with. Is that okay? Everybody understand that?" Defense counsel, in defendant's presence, acknowledged she understood. The record clearly supports that defendant was made aware of the potential of civil commitment in accord with Bellamy.

Finally, given the above, the PCR petition was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing. State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 541 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992).

Affirmed.