STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. K.A. (07-05-1614, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0139-16T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Defendant K.A. pled guilty in April 2008 to first-degree aggravated sexual assault for sexual intercourse with his 15‑year‑old daughter; judgment entered August 1, 2008. He was originally sentenced to 74 years (85% parole ineligibility), later reduced on resentencing to 50 years (85% parole ineligibility).
- Defendant appealed his original sentence; this court found it excessive and remanded for resentencing; resentencing affirmed on subsequent appeal and the Supreme Court denied certification.
- In October 2014 defendant filed a petition for post‑conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for advising him to reject an earlier 20‑year plea offer and instead accept an open plea that exposed him to 20 years to life. He also alleged counsel failed to warn him he was exposed to an extended term based on prior convictions.
- The PCR petition was filed more than five years after the judgment of conviction; defendant conceded the petition was untimely but argued excusable neglect (paralegals stopped working on his file, misleading advice from another inmate about the deadline) and fundamental injustice due to counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness.
- At an evidentiary hearing the court heard testimony from defendant, his trial attorney, and the assistant prosecutor; the court found (a) the petition was time‑barred because defendant did not show excusable neglect, and (b) on the merits counsel was not ineffective — defendant was informed of sentencing exposure at the plea hearing, counsel reasonably rejected the earlier plea when the State’s evidence was weaker, and the open plea was entered after the State’s proof strengthened.
- The PCR court denied relief; the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding defendant failed to show excusable neglect or Strickland prejudice and that the court’s factual findings were supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ali) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Rule 3:22‑12(a)(1) | Petition is untimely; defendant did not prove excusable neglect or fundamental injustice | Excusable neglect due to paralegals leaving, misinformation from inmate, delay in retrieving paperwork; enforcement causes fundamental injustice | Petition time‑barred; defendant failed to show excusable neglect or that enforcing the time bar would result in fundamental injustice |
| Ineffective assistance for rejecting 20‑year plea and advising open plea | Counsel reasonably rejected first offer given infirmities in State’s evidence at that time; later State evidence strengthened case; counsel informed defendant of risks | Counsel misadvised to reject a favorable 20‑year offer and induced open plea without adequate warning of exposure; would have accepted 20‑year plea but for counsel | No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; counsel’s advice was reasonable given changing strength of evidence and defendant was informed of full exposure at plea colloquy |
| Failure to advise about extended‑term exposure | No prejudice; defendant was informed and signed notice acknowledging extended term and prior convictions | Counsel failed to warn defendant he was eligible for discretionary extended term based on prior convictions | Court found defendant was aware of extended‑term exposure and signed notice; no Strickland relief |
| Credibility of counsel’s and judge’s in‑chambers remarks about likely sentence | State: judge made no promises; counsel appropriately relayed probable range based on discussions | Defendant: counsel told him he could secure 15–20 years; relied on estimate and pled to open plea | Court credited that defendant knew his exposure was 20 years to life and that no promise was guaranteed; factual findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (NJ adoption of Strickland)
- State v. Nuñez‑Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (prejudice showing when guilty plea entered requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (1994) (standard for plea‑based ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Murray, 162 N.J. 240 (2000) (defendant’s lack of legal sophistication does not excuse procedural time bars)
- State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (failure to allege sufficient facts of excusable neglect bars untimely PCR)