STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FLORIBERT B. NAVAÂ (13-07-0690, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3436-15T4

Background

Defendant Floribert Nava pleaded guilty to first-degree carjacking after admitting she entered a victim's car with a toy gun, threatened the victim's family, and forced the victim to drive for about ninety minutes to retrieve a child; arrest occurred near the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
Plea agreement included the State's recommendation of a 12-year sentence with an 85% parole disqualification and five years parole supervision under NERA; the court imposed that sentence.
This court remanded for fuller sentencing findings; the trial court resentenced to the same 12-year NERA term.
Defendant filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel coerced the plea by overstating exposure ("100 years") and failed to explain strengths/weaknesses or adequately use an interpreter during counsel meetings.
The PCR judge denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea was knowing and voluntary, defense counsel had used a Spanish interpreter when meeting the client, the record showed substantial evidence against defendant, and defendant did not show she would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance grounds	State: record shows plea was knowing and voluntary; no disputed material facts requiring a hearing	Nava: counsel coerced plea by misstating sentencing exposure, failed to explain case strengths/weaknesses, and interpreter problems prevented informed choice	Court: No evidentiary hearing required; PCR denied because record shows valid waiver, counsel used an interpreter, evidence against defendant was substantial, and no showing she would have rejected the plea
Whether counsel's allegedly overstated sentencing exposure supports ineffective assistance	State: counsel and judge adequately advised defendant of exposure; counsel's warning was legally reasonable assessment	Nava: counsel told her she faced "100 years," coercing plea	Court: Counsel's assessment was legally sound; defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice
Whether language/dialect issues with interpreter denied effective assistance	State: defense counsel brought a Spanish interpreter for meetings; no specific proof dialect prevented communication	Nava: interpreter differences prevented understanding and informed decision	Court: No evidence of distinct dialect or that interpreter failure affected decision to plead; claim rejected
Whether defendant showed prejudice (would have gone to trial)	State: substantial evidence against defendant made going to trial risky; defendant did not assert she would have proceeded to trial if properly advised	Nava: inability to understand counsel/translator meant she could not make an informed choice about trial	Court: Defendant did not establish reasonable probability she would have rejected plea and obtained a better outcome; Strickland/Fritz not satisfied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Guzman, 313 N.J. Super. 363 (App. Div.) (defendant who does not speak English has the right to translation to participate in defense)
State v. Kounelis, 258 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div.) (translation requirement and right to understand proceedings)
State v. Perez, 100 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div.) (language barrier may raise adequacy of counsel issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey application of Strickland)