STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PELDRINA DANSO-BEDIAKO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1936-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PELDRINA DANSO-BEDIAKO,

     Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________

              Submitted February 6, 2018 – Decided March 15, 2018

              Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 04-
              08-1400.

              Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
              for appellant (William P. Welaj, Designated
              Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

              Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor,
              attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella,
              Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Nicholas
              D. Norcia, Assistant Prosecutor, on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Peldrina Danso-Bediako appeals from an October 7,

2016 order denying her petition for post-conviction relief (PCR)
without an evidentiary hearing.      We affirm because defendant's

petition was time-barred under Rule 3:22-12(a)(1) and is otherwise

without merit.

     In February 2004, defendant was hired to work as a home health

aide for M.N., who was eighty-eight years old.   On April 15, 2004,

M.N. died.   M.N.'s daughter later discovered that there were

thirty-three withdrawals from M.N.'s bank account between April

15, 2004 and April 30, 2004.   The withdrawals totaled $13,532.21.

     In August 2004, defendant was indicted for one count of third-

degree theft by deception, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4, and three counts of

third-degree uttering a forged instrument, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(3).

Thereafter, she pled guilty to third-degree theft by deception.

In pleading guilty, defendant admitted that she made a series of

unauthorized withdrawals from M.N.'s bank account using his ATM

card.

     On her plea form, defendant circled yes to question seventeen,

which asked if she understood that if she was not a United States

citizen, she could be deported by virtue of her guilty plea.       At

her plea hearing, defendant was questioned about her citizenship,

acknowledged that she was not a United States citizen, and further

acknowledged that she understood that her guilty plea could impact

her immigration status.



                                 2                          A-1936-16T3
     Defendant was sentenced on August 15, 2008.                  In accordance

with the plea agreement, she was sentenced to three years of

probation      and   ordered   to   pay       restitution   in   the   amount    of

$13,532.21.      At the sentencing hearing, the State and counsel for

defendant agreed that the amount of restitution was $13,532.21.

     Defendant, representing herself, filed a petition for PCR on

August 25, 2015.        She was assigned counsel, and counsel filed a

supplemental brief.       The PCR judge, Judge James M. Blaney, heard

oral argument.       On October 7, 2016, Judge Blaney entered an order,

together with a twelve-page written opinion, denying defendant's

petition.

     In his opinion, Judge Blaney summarized the well-established

law governing PCR petitions.        He then analyzed each of defendant's

arguments.      He found that defendant's petition was time-barred

under Rule 3:22-12(a)(1), and that she had not shown excusable

neglect for the delay in filing the petition.                Judge Blaney also

went on to analyze the claims on their merits and found that they

did not satisfy either prong of the Strickland test governing

claims    of   ineffective     assistance       of   counsel.     Strickland     v.

Washington, 
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also State v. Fritz, 
105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the two-part Strickland test).

     On     appeal,    defendant     makes       two   arguments,      which    she

articulates as follows:

                                          3                               A-1936-16T3
         POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
         DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION
         RELIEF, IN PART, UPON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
         PURSUANT TO RULE 3:22-12(a)(1).

         POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
         DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION
         RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HER AN EVIDENTIARY
         HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HER CONTENTION THAT
         SHE WAS ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA
         ON THE BASIS SHE HAD FAILED TO RECEIVE
         ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL
         COUNSEL REGARDING THE ADVERSE IMPACT A GUILTY
         PLEA WOULD HAVE UPON HER ABILITY TO OBTAIN
         CITIZENSHIP STATUS, RESULTING IN A GUILTY PLEA
         WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FREELY, KNOWINGLY AND
         VOLUNTARILY ENTERED.

    Having reviewed the record in light of defendant's arguments

and the law, we conclude that defendant's arguments are without

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.     R.

2:11-3(e)(2).   We affirm substantially for the reasons explained

by Judge Blaney in his comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

    Affirmed.




                                4                         A-1936-16T3