STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAVIEL TOROÂ (08-10-2524, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3894-15T4

Background

Javiel Toro pled guilty in 2009 to one count of second‑degree sexual assault of a 15‑year‑old pursuant to a plea agreement calling for a five‑year term with no parole disqualifier, Megan's Law registration, and lifetime parole supervision.
During the plea colloquy the trial court paused to ensure Toro completed and understood statutorily required forms (including a question confirming understanding of parole supervision for life), and Toro answered affirmatively that he reviewed, understood, and signed the forms.
At sentencing in August 2009 Toro, with new counsel, sought to withdraw his plea; counsel declined to move to withdraw because he saw no basis to do so, and the court denied any motion as unsupported and sentenced Toro per the plea.
Toro filed a PCR petition on June 30, 2015 (almost six years after judgment of conviction), claiming ineffective assistance: (1) first counsel failed to advise him he would be subject to lifetime parole supervision and its consequences; (2) second counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw the plea and for not appealing.
The PCR court denied relief as time‑barred under R. 3:22‑12(a)(1) and, on the merits, ruled Toro failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance given the thorough plea colloquy and sentencing record; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Toro's claim that counsel failed to advise him of lifetime parole supervision	State: The record (plea colloquy and signed forms) shows Toro was informed and understood lifetime parole supervision; no hearing needed	Toro: Trial counsel failed to advise him of lifetime parole supervision; he did not understand that consequence and needs a hearing to prove it	Denied — no prima facie ineffective assistance shown; plea colloquy and forms refute the claim; no evidentiary hearing required
Whether second counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw the plea	State: Counsel reasonably concluded a motion would be futile given the careful plea colloquy and Slater factors; no prejudice	Toro: Second counsel summarily refused to file a withdrawal motion; that was ineffective assistance	Denied — counsel explained his analysis on record; Slater factors weighed against withdrawal; no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether the PCR petition was timely or the time bar should be relaxed	State: Petition filed after five‑year limit; Toro failed to show excusable neglect or exceptional circumstances to relax the bar	Toro: He only learned of the parole supervision consequence in custody in 2015 and was unaware of PCR rights, so delay was excusable	Denied — petition was filed beyond five years and Toro failed to show excusable or exceptional circumstances; ignorance of the law is not excusable
Whether, on the merits, Toro established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland/Fritz	State: Even on the merits, Toro cannot show deficient performance or prejudice given the record	Toro: Counsel’s failures at plea and sentencing deprived him of a fair proceeding	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown; plea and sentencing record undermine the claims

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (prima facie standard for PCR ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (factors for withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Milne, 178 N.J. 486 (burden to show excusable neglect to relax PCR time bar)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (factors for relaxing PCR time limits; exceptional circumstances)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (PCR evidentiary hearing discretion and standards)