STATEOF NEW JERSEY v. VICTOR MEJIA, a/k/a VICTOR MANUEL MEJIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3022-16T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VICTOR MEJIA, a/k/a
VICTOR MANUEL MEJIA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________

              Submitted January 30, 2018 – Decided February 22, 2018

              Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No.
              10-03-0015.

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

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Adam D. Klein, Deputy Attorney
              General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Victor Mejia appeals from a February 1, 2017 order

denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).                 We affirm.
       Defendant     was   arrested    and   charged     with    first-degree

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-

5(a)(1), 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-(b)(1), 
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and second-degree

conspiracy, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2.           At the time, defendant was not a

United States citizen but was a legal resident.           Facing a possible

twenty-year prison term if convicted of the first-degree offense,

he entered into a plea bargain under which he was permitted to

plead guilty to third-degree conspiracy, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1),


N.J.S.A.     2C:5-2(a)(1).      Pursuant     to   the   terms    of   the   plea

agreement, he received a suspended sentence of three years.

       The record contains overwhelming documentation that defendant

was advised of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty

plea, including deportation.          Defendant initialed the page of the

plea form setting forth his answers to question seventeen, which

addressed the immigration consequences of the plea.1             In addition,

both   the   trial   judge   and   defendant's     attorney     addressed    the

immigration issue in defendant's presence on the record at the

plea hearing on August 11, 2011.




1
   Defendant and his attorney completed the 2009 version of the
plea form, except for question seventeen.       Defendant and his
attorney separately completed the updated 2011 version of question
seventeen. That completed, initialed page appears in defendant's
appendix, along with the rest of the completed plea form.

                                        2                               A-3022-16T4
      Defendant's counsel stated on the record that he had consulted

with three immigration attorneys on defendant's behalf and had

relayed their advice to defendant.              Defense counsel also stated

that he had told defendant that if he left the United States, he

might have trouble getting back into the country, due to his

conviction.    The judge asked defendant: "You understand that since

you are not a United States citizen and as a result of this guilty

plea, you may be subject to be deported?"                 Defendant replied,

"Yes."    The judge then advised defendant that he had the right to

consult with an immigration attorney "to see what your immigration

rights are." Although defense counsel indicated that he had spoken

to immigration attorneys, the judge directly asked defendant if

he wanted an opportunity to personally consult an immigration

attorney before entering his plea.            Defendant said he did not.

      At the sentencing hearing on October 7, 2011, defendant's

counsel     stated,    in   defendant's         presence,      that   defendant

"understands there may be immigration consequences."              He also told

the   judge   that    defendant   had       consulted   with   "individualized

counsel."     When asked if he wanted to address the court, defendant

stated that he did not.

      Defendant, who was then thirty years old, had been in this

country since he was a baby, and he did not need an interpreter

at these proceedings.       He does not claim that he misunderstood

                                        3                               A-3022-16T4
what the judge and his attorney said at the plea and sentencing

hearings.     Rather, he now claims that, outside of the court

proceedings, his attorney advised him that there would be no

immigration consequences to his guilty plea.       Based on that

assertion, he presents the following point of argument:

            POINT ONE:    MR. MEJIA IS ENTITLED TO AN
            EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT TRIAL
            COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
            COUNSEL BY FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE
            DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.

    On this record, we find no error in the PCR judge's decision

that an evidentiary hearing was not required.   See R. 3:22-10(b).

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Donna M.

Taylor in her January 25, 2017 written opinion.

    Affirmed.




                                 4                         A-3022-16T4