STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JULIO R. RUIZ-VIDAL (02-06-0095, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-4708-18T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JULIO R. RUIZ-VIDAL, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted November 18, 2020 – Decided January 22, 2021 Before Judges Alvarez and Sumners. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 02-06- 0095. Mitchell E. Ignatoff, attorney for appellant. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Julio R. Ruiz-Vidal's post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel was denied in part and granted in part without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant contends the PCR court erred in finding that his petition was time- and procedurally barred. He asserted he was denied an opportunity to seek admission into the pretrial intervention program (PTI) because counsel failed to: move for dismissal of second-degree charges against him that would have made it easier to gain entry into PTI; advise him he could apply to PTI despite the prosecutor's refusal to consent to his admission; and advise him he could appeal the prosecutor's refusal. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. I In late 2000, Detective Stephen Jones, New Jersey State Police, and Special State Investigator Mario Estrada, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice, began an investigation into reports by the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that there were criminal operations engaged in the illegal acquisition of driver's licenses at DMV agencies throughout the state, including the Edison Tano Mall DMV agency. A confidential informant advised them that "brokers" were obtaining driver's licenses for non-citizens without proper documentation. In exchange for money, A-4708-18T1 2 a broker would take individuals through the licensing process at a DMV facility, where an agency employee working with the broker would illegally provide them state-issued driver's licenses. In early February 2001, three men, including defendant, went to Karla Andree-Quesada's home. They each paid Andree-Quesada, the broker, $1700 and were told to return with any identification documents they had. When they returned several days later, defendant brought his Guatemalan passport and driver's license, and an identification card that he obtained in California when he first arrived in the United States. Andree-Quesada then gave the men answers to the written driver's test. Rafael Cordero, Andree-Quesada's housemate, drove the men to the Edison Tano Mall DMV agency, which was under surveillance. Once at the agency, Cordero directed the men to a counter to take the written driver's test. Defendant showed DMV clerk Raymond Hagenson his documents and took the test. Hagenson, who was involved in the scheme and admitted to being paid between $50 and $100 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals