STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. M.E. (08-04-0703, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4716-17T1

Background

In 2008 M.E. exposed himself naked from a second-floor apartment window; two girls under 16 observed him. He was indicted on multiple counts and pleaded guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child pursuant to a plea agreement.
Sentencing (Oct. 2008): three-year suspended sentence with conditions including outpatient sex-offender treatment, Megan’s Law registration, and Parole Supervision for Life (PSL); remaining counts dismissed.
No direct appeal or motion to vacate plea was filed.
In January 2017 (over eight years later) M.E. filed a pro se PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to explain PSL/Megan’s Law and failing to review discovery/defenses; counsel later asserted a Slater-based plea-withdrawal claim.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the petition was time-barred under R. 3:22-12(a)(1) and that M.E.’s assertions were bald and contradicted by the record (plea colloquy and signed plea form showing notice of PSL/Megan’s Law).
Appellate Division affirmed for reasons stated by the PCR judge but remanded solely to correct the Judgment of Conviction (JOC) to reflect sentence/collateral consequences as the judge had ordered on the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under R. 3:22-12(a)(1) / excusable neglect	State: petition filed >5 years after JOC and defendant did not plead sufficient facts showing excusable neglect or fundamental injustice.	M.E.: delay excused because he did not understand plea consequences; fundamental injustice would result if time bar enforced.	Denied — petition untimely; defendant’s assertions were bald, unsupported, and contradicted by record.
Prima facie ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to explain PSL/Megan’s Law; failure to review defenses/discovery)	State: record (plea colloquy and plea form) shows defendant was informed and acknowledged PSL/Megan’s Law and that he discussed case with counsel; no prima facie showing.	M.E.: counsel failed to explain collateral consequences and failed to review defenses/discovery, warranting an evidentiary hearing.	Denied — no prima facie showing; no hearing required.
Slater plea-withdrawal claim (post‑sentence)	State: Slater factors not satisfied; no manifest injustice; plea knowingly entered.	M.E.: seeks withdrawal under Slater because of ineffective assistance and lack of understanding of PSL consequences.	Denied — Slater factors not met; defendant never claimed innocence and record shows plea was informed.
Remedy: correction of Judgment of Conviction	State: JOC should reflect sentence and collateral consequences as pronounced.	M.E.: JOC did not accurately list PSL/Megan’s Law and suspended sentence terms.	Remanded — limited remand to correct the JOC consistent with the court’s oral order.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (factors governing post‑sentence withdrawal of guilty pleas)
State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344 (2009) (PCR filing time limits and analysis)
State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (procedural requirements for PCR timeliness)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required on PCR claims)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (characterizing unsupported assertions as bald allegations)
State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div. 2009) (excusable neglect requires more than a plausible explanation)
State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. Super. 351 (App. Div. 2014) (de novo review of documentary record where no evidentiary hearing held)
State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391 (2004) (Slater/withdrawal of plea context)