State v. Rainlin Vasco (A-54-17) (080426)
(NOTE: The Court did not write a plenary opinion in this case. Instead, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Espinosa’s dissenting opinion, which is published at ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___(App. Div. 2017) (Espinosa, J.A.D., dissenting).)
Argued October 9, 2018 -- Decided October 30, 2018 PER CURIAM
A majority of an Appellate Division panel affirmed defendant Rainlin Vasco’sjudgment of conviction. The Court considers whether, under the circumstances presented, defendant provided a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
Defendant was arrested when his mother called 9-1-1 to report that he had threatened his girlfriend, N.C., with a knife and was punching N.C. in the leg. N.C. gave a statement to police on the night of the incident. Defendant was initially charged with simple assault, terroristic threats, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. In September 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d).
During defendant’s plea allocution, he was asked, “[Y]ou didn’t have a lawful purpose for that knife, right?” He answered, “I had a lawful purpose, like, I didn’t want to do anything unlawful. I just possessed it.” The judge then indicated he could not accept the plea because defendant had not presented an adequate factual basis and suggested the partiesreturn after the lunch break. When they did, counsel asked defendant, “And you didn’t havea lawful purpose for that knife, right?” to which defendant said, “I did not.” The judgeindicated he was satisfied defendant provided an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea.
Defendant later moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that it lacked an adequate factual basis. He submitted a certification stating that he held the knife to move it away from N.C. for fear she would use it against him, not to use it as a weapon. He also provided a statement N.C. gave to his investigator in which she recanted her prior allegations. Defendant’s mother gave a statement indicating that defendant had a knife. The motion judge found there was anadequate factual basis for defendant’s plea.
A majority of the Appellate Division panel affirmed the motion judge’sdetermination. ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2017) (slip op. at 1).
1
(NOTE: The Court did not write a plenary opinion in this case. Instead, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Espinosa’s dissenting opinion, which is published at ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___(App. Div. 2017) (Espinosa, J.A.D., dissenting).)
Argued October 9, 2018 -- Decided October 30, 2018 PER CURIAM
A majority of an Appellate Division panel affirmed defendant Rainlin Vasco’sjudgment of conviction. The Court considers whether, under the circumstances presented, defendant provided a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
Defendant was arrested when his mother called 9-1-1 to report that he had threatened his girlfriend, N.C., with a knife and was punching N.C. in the leg. N.C. gave a statement to police on the night of the incident. Defendant was initially charged with simple assault, terroristic threats, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. In September 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d).
During defendant’s plea allocution, he was asked, “[Y]ou didn’t have a lawful purpose for that knife, right?” He answered, “I had a lawful purpose, like, I didn’t want to do anything unlawful. I just possessed it.” The judge then indicated he could not accept the plea because defendant had not presented an adequate factual basis and suggested the partiesreturn after the lunch break. When they did, counsel asked defendant, “And you didn’t havea lawful purpose for that knife, right?” to which defendant said, “I did not.” The judgeindicated he was satisfied defendant provided an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea.
Defendant later moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that it lacked an adequate factual basis. He submitted a certification stating that he held the knife to move it away from N.C. for fear she would use it against him, not to use it as a weapon. He also provided a statement N.C. gave to his investigator in which she recanted her prior allegations. Defendant’s mother gave a statement indicating that defendant had a knife. The motion judge found there was anadequate factual basis for defendant’s plea.
A majority of the Appellate Division panel affirmed the motion judge’sdetermination. ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2017) (slip op. at 1).
1
Judge Espinosa dissented. She observed that the issue in this case is whether defendant “admitted his guilt” -- “not whether the State could prove defendant’s guilt” -- and stressed that “the threshold for [appellate] review must be a recognition of the differencebetween a conviction following a trial, in which the defendant has been afforded his constitutional rights, and a conviction following a guilty plea, in which he has waived those rights.” Id. at ___ (Espinosa, J.A.D., dissenting) (slip op. at 1). “Before a court can accept adefendant’s guilty plea, it first must be convinced that (1) the defendant has provided anadequate factual basis for the plea; (2) the plea is made voluntarily; and (3) the plea is made knowingly.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 2) (quoting State v. Lipa, 219 N.J. 323, 331 (2014)). Thedissent noted that “each element of the offense [must] be addressed in the plea colloquy,” id. at ___ (slip op. at 2) (quoting State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218, 231 (2013)), and that “[t]he Court has made it clear the defendant must be the source for establishing the factualfoundation,” id. at ___ (slip op. at 2).
The dissent discussed State v. Gregory, 220 N.J. 413 (2015), in which the Court found no adequate factual basis for a guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute because the defendant did not indicate in his plea allocution that he intended to distribute the heroin he possessed. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 3-5). Had the Court looked to the evidence, notsolely to defendant’s allocution, the dissent observed, “the factual basis given . . . would appear to be adequate”; the Court did not look beyond the allocution, however. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 4). The dissent also relied on State v. Perez, in which the Court specified that “[a] defendant must do more than accede to a version of events presented by the prosecutor. Rather, a defendant must admit that he engaged in the charged offense and provide a factual statement or acknowledge all of the facts that comprise the essential elements of the offense to which the defendant pleads guilty.” See id. at ___ (slip op. at 4) (quoting Perez, 220 N.J. 423, 433-34 (2015)).
Noting that “[t]he essential elements of an offence under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) are
(1) there was a weapon, (2) defendant possessed the weapon knowingly, and (3) thedefendant’s possession of the weapon was under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for a lawful use,” the dissent opined that defendant’s allocution did not contain admissions asto each of those three elements as required by Gregory and Perez. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 6-8).According to the dissent, “it was necessary for defendant to admit to circumstances that weremanifestly inappropriate to provide an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 7). The dissent underscored that “the majority . . . cited circumstances derivedfrom statements made by witnesses who have since recanted” but that “none of [those]circumstances were acknowledged by defendant.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8).
Finally, the dissent “address[ed] the appropriate standard of review” and observedthat the Court has distinguished “between the review of cases in which the plea is supported by an adequate factual basis and those in which it is not.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8-9) (discussing State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393, 403-04 (2015)). In the latter case, an appellate courtexercises a de novo review and, “if a factual basis has not been given to support a guilty plea,the analysis ends and the plea must be vacated.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 9) (quoting Tate, 220
2
The dissent discussed State v. Gregory, 220 N.J. 413 (2015), in which the Court found no adequate factual basis for a guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute because the defendant did not indicate in his plea allocution that he intended to distribute the heroin he possessed. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 3-5). Had the Court looked to the evidence, notsolely to defendant’s allocution, the dissent observed, “the factual basis given . . . would appear to be adequate”; the Court did not look beyond the allocution, however. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 4). The dissent also relied on State v. Perez, in which the Court specified that “[a] defendant must do more than accede to a version of events presented by the prosecutor. Rather, a defendant must admit that he engaged in the charged offense and provide a factual statement or acknowledge all of the facts that comprise the essential elements of the offense to which the defendant pleads guilty.” See id. at ___ (slip op. at 4) (quoting Perez, 220 N.J. 423, 433-34 (2015)).
Noting that “[t]he essential elements of an offence under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) are
(1) there was a weapon, (2) defendant possessed the weapon knowingly, and (3) thedefendant’s possession of the weapon was under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for a lawful use,” the dissent opined that defendant’s allocution did not contain admissions asto each of those three elements as required by Gregory and Perez. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 6-8).According to the dissent, “it was necessary for defendant to admit to circumstances that weremanifestly inappropriate to provide an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 7). The dissent underscored that “the majority . . . cited circumstances derivedfrom statements made by witnesses who have since recanted” but that “none of [those]circumstances were acknowledged by defendant.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8).
Finally, the dissent “address[ed] the appropriate standard of review” and observedthat the Court has distinguished “between the review of cases in which the plea is supported by an adequate factual basis and those in which it is not.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8-9) (discussing State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393, 403-04 (2015)). In the latter case, an appellate courtexercises a de novo review and, “if a factual basis has not been given to support a guilty plea,the analysis ends and the plea must be vacated.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 9) (quoting Tate, 220
2
N.J. at 404). “[W]here the plea is supported by an adequate factual basis but the defendantlater asserts his innocence,” by contrast, the factors set forth in State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009), and the abuse-of-discretion standard apply. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 9) (quoting Tate, 220 N.J. at 404).
HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Espinosa’s dissenting opinion. Defendant’s guilty plea is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON,
FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion.
HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Espinosa’s dissenting opinion. Defendant’s guilty plea is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON,
FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion.
