STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JERMAINE JOHNSON(06-05-1776, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3225-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- In 2006 Johnson (age 23) pled guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child for sexual relations with a 15‑year‑old; a second‑degree sexual‑assault charge was dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- Plea agreement included probation and a prosecutor recommendation; the Judgment of Conviction (JOC) dated January 8, 2007, stated Johnson was subject to parole supervision for life (PSL).
- Plea and sentencing transcripts and forms inconsistently referred to Community Supervision for Life (CSL) at times, though the JOC and later signed forms reflected PSL.
- Johnson admitted a PSL violation in 2011 and signed PSL condition forms in December 2012 and January 2013.
- Johnson filed a PCR petition on October 29, 2014 — about 7 years 10 months after the JOC — asserting (1) excusable neglect for missing the 5‑year PCR filing deadline due to confusion over CSL vs. PSL, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel re: the plea, and (3) PSL is unconstitutional.
- The PCR court denied relief as time‑barred under Rule 3:22‑12, found no prima facie ineffective‑assistance showing, and barred the constitutional challenge as procedurally defaulted; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under R. 3:22‑12 | PCR petition was filed after the 5‑year limit; Rule bars late petitions absent excusable neglect and fundamental injustice | Delay excusable due to confusion over CSL vs. PSL and reliance on inconsistent plea/sentencing references | Petition untimely; Johnson failed to show excusable neglect or fundamental injustice; time bar enforced |
| Excusable neglect / fundamental injustice | No sufficient factual showing to excuse delay; Johnson knew of PSL by 2011/2012 | Confusion about CSL/PSL and rehabilitative forbearance justified late filing | Not satisfied: inconsistency did not excuse delay; Johnson was on notice and waited years before filing |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel re: plea | No prima facie showing that counsel’s performance fell below standards or that rejecting plea would be rational | Counsel failed to clarify CSL vs. PSL and misstated consequences; would have gone to trial if known about PSL | Denied: plea was favorable (avoided more serious charge and prison exposure); Johnson did not show reasonable probability he would have rejected plea |
| Evidentiary hearing / procedural default | No hearing required absent prima facie showing; constitutional claim barred by R. 3:22‑4(a) if not raised on direct appeal | At minimum, requested evidentiary hearing to develop record | No hearing required; claims procedurally barred or time‑barred; appellate court affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (discusses prima facie showing and standard for granting evidentiary hearing in PCR proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance two‑prong test)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adoption of Strickland in New Jersey)
- State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (ineffective assistance in guilty‑plea context; quoting Hill standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to guilty pleas)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (rationality inquiry when advising about plea consequences)
- State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387 (timeliness and application of R. 3:22‑12)
- State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295 (addressing retroactive imposition of PSL vs. CSL)