STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NOEL R. SURUY(11-12-1016, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5057-14T1

Background

In August 2011 Noel R. Suruy attacked four people with a machete at and near his ex-girlfriend’s home, causing severe injuries and permanent scarring.
Suruy was charged with multiple counts including four counts of first‑degree attempted murder and other serious offenses; he pled guilty on July 23, 2013 to four counts of second‑degree aggravated assault pursuant to a plea agreement.
The plea produced a recommended 15‑year aggregate sentence with an 85% parole‑ineligibility term; the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced accordingly in October 2013.
Suruy filed a pro se post‑conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, primarily asserting counsel failed to use a Spanish interpreter during consultations and coerced the plea.
The PCR court (the original sentencing judge) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record (plea colloquy, interpreter at hearings, bilingual plea forms, judge’s observations) contradicted Suruy’s claims and that he failed to show prejudice.
Suruy appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed, holding he did not make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance or prejudice sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR court erred by denying evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claim	State: PCR court properly required a prima facie showing and may deny a hearing when record contradicts claims	Suruy: Counsel ineffective for not using Spanish interpreter, coercing plea, and failing to litigate defenses; thus plea was not knowing/voluntary	Denied — Suruy failed to make prima facie showing; record and judge’s observations refute language‑barrier and coercion claims; no prejudice shown
Whether counsel’s alleged deficient performance undermined voluntariness of plea	State: Plea colloquy, bilingual forms, and interpreter at proceedings show voluntariness	Suruy: Hesitancy at plea hearing and later certification show he did not understand and was pressured	Denied — court credited plea colloquy and dealings with counsel; defendant’s in‑court admissions are a strong bar to relief
Whether failure to advise about applicability of assault counts supports withdrawal	State: Defendant explicitly admitted intent to seriously injure victims at plea colloquy	Suruy: Claimed he only intended to attack the men and not Y.R. or her daughter	Denied — plea colloquy contains thorough admissions inconsistent with defendant’s later claims
Whether defendant demonstrated prejudice (would have gone to trial)	State: Acceptance of plea avoided far greater exposure; defendant did not show he would rationally reject the plea	Suruy: Would have insisted on trial absent counsel’s errors	Denied — no reasonable probability he would have rejected favorable plea; decision to go to trial would not have been rational

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (1997) (prima facie standard for PCR and need to show reasonable likelihood of success)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland)
State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (2012) (application of Strickland/Fritz standards)
State v. Nunez‑Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (plea‑context prejudice requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standards for prejudice in guilty‑plea context)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (rationality of rejecting plea relevant to prejudice analysis)
State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248 (1999) (counsel’s duty to investigate; reasonableness analysis)
State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416 (1999) (solemn in‑court plea statements and trial court findings create a strong presumption of verity)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (1994) (plea validity—understanding nature and consequences)