STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY RANDALLÂ (12-07-1894, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3499-15T4

Defendant Timothy Randall was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts; he pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.
The Essex County Prosecutor agreed as part of the plea not to refer defendant for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA); prosecutor warned, and the court emphasized, that this did not bind the Attorney General or Department of Corrections.
Defendant received a three-year flat sentence (as agreed) with community supervision for life and jail credits, making him eligible for parole months later.
Before release, the Attorney General filed for civil commitment under the SVPA; the trial court granted the petition.
Defendant filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming his plea was illusory and counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that civil commitment could still occur despite the county prosecutor's promise. Trial court denied relief; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was "illusory" because the Essex County Prosecutor’s promise not to seek SVPA commitment could be negated by the Attorney General or DOC	The State argued the prosecutor’s promise was legitimate and not misleading; county prosecutor could have sought delegation but declined	Randall argued the plea was illusory and violated due process because the county prosecutor’s promise could be overridden by the Attorney General or DOC	Court held the plea was not illusory: the prosecutor legitimately declined to seek commitment and the colloquy made clear the county’s promise did not bind the AG or DOC, which defendant acknowledged
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise defendant he still faced potential SVPA commitment despite the county prosecutor’s promise	The State contended counsel’s performance was not deficient and, in any event, defendant was informed at plea that AG/DOC could still seek commitment so no prejudice	Randall argued counsel failed to inform him of SVPA risk, meeting 3:22-2 standards for ineffective assistance, warranting an evidentiary hearing	Court held defendant did not establish deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland: plea colloquy and prosecutor/court statements put defendant on notice and he acknowledged understanding; no PCR relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (applies Strickland to challenges to guilty pleas)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (applies Strickland to plea-bargaining contexts)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey application of ineffective-assistance standards)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (extension of Strickland principles in plea settings in New Jersey)