NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3064-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MANSFIELD CREIGHTON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted September 12, 2022 – Decided September 15, 2022 Before Judges Mayer and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 93-09-3218. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Abby P. Schwartz, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Hannah F. Kurt, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from the February 4, 2021 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. In 1983, defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), and was sentenced to a term of probation. Following a jury trial in May 1994, he was convicted of an amended charge of third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), third-degree criminal restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2, and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d). On June 16, 1994, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate five-year term for these offenses. In December 2019, more than twenty-five years after the 1994 judgment of conviction was entered, defendant filed his first petition for PCR. He asserted trial counsel from his 1994 jury trial was ineffective because his attorney "did not advi[se him] about the consequences [of his] immigration status." PCR counsel filed a supplemental brief, arguing trial counsel: misled defendant about the immigration consequences defendant faced if convicted; and failed to inform defendant about the penal consequences of a plea offer from the State. Further, PCR counsel contended defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims. A-3064-20 2 Judge James L. Jukes heard argument on defendant's petition in January 2021. At that hearing, the State noted defendant did not plead guilty to the charges he faced in 1994, but instead went to trial, despite defendant's representation to the contrary. PCR counsel acknowledged defendant had no "documentation that . . . dated all the way back then . . . . [I]t's just basically his sworn testimony to me and to the court that . . . he was misinformed of the . . . plea." On February 4, 2021, Judge Jukes denied defendant's petition as time barred. Citing Rule 3:22-12(a)(1), he found defendant "has not presented any evidence to show excusable neglect nor any arguments to justify the delay." Defendant presents the following arguments on appeal: POINT I PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL AND THE PETITION …

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