RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3440-18T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUGO AGUILAR, a/k/a HUGO AGUILAR URREA, Defendant-Appellant. Submitted September 16, 2020 – Decided September 28, 2020 Before Judges Alvarez and Mitterhoff. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 16-03-0245. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John V. Molitor, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Fredric M. Knapp, Morris County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Paula Jordao, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM A Law Division judge sentenced defendant Hugo Aguilar, pursuant to a plea agreement, on September 22, 2017, to time served of 1332 days incarceration plus appropriate mandatory consequences, including fines and penalties. Defendant pled guilty to one offense charged in a multi-count indictment, third-degree child endangerment by a non-caretaker, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1). At the time, an immigration detainer had already been lodged against him. Defendant did not file a direct appeal, only an unsuccessful petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserted that neither of his attorneys nor the court explained to him that deportation was mandatory because the nature of the crime to which he entered a guilty plea was considered a "felony" under immigration law. Defendant now appeals the denial of his petition, and we vacate the order and remand for the judge to conduct a plenary hearing. We conclude defendant established a prima facie case warranting such relief. When defendant entered the plea on May 30, 2017, it was undisputed that he faced deportation consequences. He was represented by counsel not just in the criminal matter but had retained an immigration attorney as well. The immigration attorney was not present during any of defendant's court appearances in the criminal case. Defendant's plea forms were in the Spanish A-3440-18T1 2 language, and discuss the immigration consequences of the entry of a guilty plea in a more limited fashion than the English language plea form. Clearly, however, from the fact he retained immigration counsel, defendant was well aware of potential deportation consequences. No one explained to defendant that, given the nature of the charging documents, deportation was a certainty, not just a potential consequence. When the judge reviewed the issue with defendant, he spoke only of the "potential." He confirmed that defendant had the opportunity to speak to an immigration lawyer. When asked, defendant said he anticipated a final meeting with that attorney after the entry of a plea. The judge reiterated that as a result of defendant's guilty plea, "there is a strong likelihood" that he would be deported. On appeal, defendant raises the following for our consideration: I. THIS COURT SHOULD ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals