State of New Jersey v. A.W.
A-2853-22
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 7, 2024Background
- Defendant A.W., a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to multiple marijuana-related offenses in New Jersey between 1999 and 2006 and was deported in 2007.
- In 2021, after New Jersey enacted CREAMMA (marijuana legalization and expungement law), A.W. sought post-conviction relief (PCR) and moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, seeking reentry into the U.S.
- The PCR court denied his relief, finding his petition untimely (filed 14 years after removal), and found no substantive merit to his ineffective assistance of counsel or plea withdrawal claims.
- On appeal, A.W. abandoned his ineffective assistance claim and argued that his convictions should be vacated in light of CREAMMA; he specifically sought expungement of "school-zone" convictions that are excepted from automatic CREAMMA expungement.
- The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey joined as amicus, supporting A.W.'s arguments that marijuana convictions should be voided for immigration purposes and that the CREAMMA exclusion violates equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCR petition | Petition was filed 14 years late, no excusable neglect shown | Delayed petition should be excused due to changed marijuana law | Petition was untimely; no excusable neglect shown |
| Automatic expungement under CREAMMA for non-school-zone offenses | Automatic CREAMMA expungement does not require further relief | Expungements should be declared 'procedurally/substantively improvident' | Vacatur orders need not state 'procedurally improvident' |
| Expungement of school-zone convictions under CREAMMA | CREAMMA excludes these; relief must be sought separately | Exclusion violates equal protection; should also be automatically expunged | No automatic expungement; separate application allowed |
| Constitutional challenge to CREAMMA’s exclusion | Not properly noticed to Attorney General; procedurally improper | Exclusion violates equal protection for similar marijuana-related conduct | Issue not reached due to procedural impropriety |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (sets forth four-factor test for motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- State v. Gomes, 253 N.J. 6 (2023) (discusses CREAMMA's legislative history and expungement provisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (applies Strickland standard in New Jersey)