STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GLENROY A. DEERÂ (88-10-3258 AND 86-04-1304, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0430-16T1

Glenroy Deer pleaded guilty in 1987 to second-degree drug possession with intent to distribute and received one year probation; in 1989 a jury convicted him of weapon offenses and he received a seven-year term with three years parole ineligibility.
Deer unsuccessfully appealed his 1989 conviction; the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification.
In 1993, while serving his sentence, Deer was deported to Jamaica; his present location is unclear in the record.
Twenty-one years later Deer filed a first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging his trial and plea counsel in the 1987 and 1989 matters were constitutionally ineffective for failing to advise him about deportation consequences.
The PCR court denied relief as time-barred under Rule 3:22-12 (five-year filing rule), finding Deer failed to prove excusable neglect or fundamental injustice, and also denied relief on the merits because Deer did not show counsel affirmatively misadvised him about deportation.
This appeal challenges the denial of an evidentiary hearing and asks the court to relax the five-year time bar due to excusable neglect and the interests of justice; the Appellate Division affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deer’s PCR is time-barred under Rule 3:22-12	State: Petition filed >5 years after convictions; Deer failed to show excusable neglect or fundamental injustice	Deer: Did not learn about PCR until after deportation; ignorance excuses delay and warrants tolling	Time-barred; Deer failed to prove excusable neglect or fundamental injustice to overcome the five-year limit
Whether Deer merits an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance re: deportation advice	State: No prima facie showing of affirmative misadvice; no hearing required	Deer: Counsel failed to advise him about deportation; factual hearing needed to prove misadvice	No hearing; allegations were vague/bald and insufficient under pre-Padilla standards
Applicable legal standard for deportation-advice claims predating Padilla	State: Governed by Nuñez-Valdéz pre-Padilla rule—relief only where counsel gave affirmative misleading advice	Deer: Seeks relief based on counsel’s failure to advise (constructive omission)	Applied Nuñez-Valdéz; relief requires proof of affirmatively misleading advice, which Deer did not show
Whether extended delay and alleged prejudice amount to fundamental injustice	State: Long delay increases burden; Deer gave unsubstantiated claims and so cannot show prejudice	Deer: Deportation consequences caused substantial prejudice; justice requires relief despite delay	Denied: prejudice not proven and delay (over two decades) was not excused

State v. Milne, 178 N.J. 486 (discussing burden to justify filing after five-year PCR period)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (principles on excusable neglect and timeliness for PCR)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court decision on counsel’s duty to advise about deportation consequences)
State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (pre-Padilla rule requiring affirmative misadvice to obtain relief for deportation consequences)
State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387 (denying relief where defendant delayed 12 years and failed to show excusable neglect or fundamental injustice)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (bald assertions of ineffectiveness insufficient for prima facie PCR claim)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (standards for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Deer, 122 N.J. 322 (prior appeal of Deer’s 1989 conviction referenced by the court)