STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LUIS A. PEREZ (12-12-2900, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5274-15T4

In April 2012 Perez shot and killed Joseph Hurt; a grand jury indicted Perez for murder and related weapons offenses.
On March 17, 2014 Perez pled guilty to amended count of first‑degree aggravated manslaughter (and to separate drug counts), pursuant to a plea agreement recommending an aggregate 15–20 year sentence with NERA parole ineligibility; other charges were dismissed.
Perez moved to withdraw his plea; the trial court denied the motion and sentenced him to 18 years with NERA ineligibility. The Appellate Division affirmed on direct appeal.
Perez filed a pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (mainly failure to review discovery and explore self‑defense), seeking an evidentiary hearing; counsel was appointed and the PCR court denied relief without a hearing.
The PCR court found the plea colloquy and record contradicted Perez’s assertions, counsel’s plea negotiation was a reasonable strategic choice, and Perez failed to show a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial but for counsel’s alleged errors.

Issue	State's Argument	Perez's Argument	Held
Whether Perez made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing	Court: No prima facie showing; record (plea colloquy, evidence) contradicts claim	Counsel failed to review discovery/defenses and rushed an uninformed plea three days after discovery production	Denied — no hearing required; PCR dismissed
Whether counsel was deficient in failing to investigate or explain self‑defense	Counsel reasonably negotiated plea given weakness of self‑defense; record showed time to retreat and no evidence Hurt used deadly force	Evidence showed a colorable self‑defense claim that counsel failed to explore	Denied — counsel’s decision was within reasonable professional judgment
Whether Perez’s plea was involuntary or uninformed due to counsel’s alleged failures	Plea colloquy shows Perez reviewed indictment/evidence, was satisfied with counsel, and voluntarily pleaded guilty	Plea was uninformed because discovery arrived only three days earlier and counsel didn’t adequately review it	Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary as shown on the record
Prejudice: whether Perez would have insisted on trial but for counsel’s errors	It was not rational to reject plea (murder exposure including life sentence vs. favorable plea and dismissal of other counts)	Would have gone to trial if properly advised/informed	Denied — Perez failed to show reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopting Strickland in NJ)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (applying ineffective‑assistance standard to guilty pleas)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (standard for prejudice in plea cases)
State v. Nunez‑Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (plea withdrawal / ineffective assistance framework)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (limits on attacking convictions after guilty plea)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (reasonableness of counsel assessed by whether rejection of plea would be rational)
State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351 (rational‑actor test in plea context)