STATE v. FRENSEL GAITAN
A-0197-09T4 02-07-11
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief,
arguing his attorney failed to discuss with him the deportation
consequences of his guilty plea. The trial judge denied the
petition, concluding without the benefit of an evidentiary
hearing that defendant's responses to the plea form as well as
his testimony at the plea hearing demonstrated he understood the
deportation consequences. In reversing that determination, the
court also considered the impact of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559
U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), and State v.
Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (2009), both of which were decided
after defendant pled guilty and after his PCR petition was
denied.
The court recognized that certain aspects of Padilla --
namely, its holding that counsel's failure to give any
deportation advice is no different than the rendering of bad
deportation advice, and its holding that the direct/collateral
methodology regarding deportation advice had never applied to
Sixth Amendment claims of ineffectiveness -- did not create new
rules insofar as the Sixth Amendment is concerned. Because
defendant was entitled to the benefit of that federal rule, the
argument that Nuñez-Valdéz's rejection of the direct/collateral
methodology as a matter of New Jersey constitutional law
constituted a new rule was irrelevant in determining whether
defendant received the effective assistance of counsel when he
pled guilty.
The court also concluded that Nuñez-Valdéz should at least
be given pipeline retroactivity, and that defendants with
appeals pending from the denial of post-conviction relief at the
time Nuñez-Valdéz was decided are entitled to the benefit of its
holding. As a result, defendant was entitled to a hearing on
the claims set forth in his PCR petition, and the court remanded
for that purpose.
