STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AMIR A. ABUROUMI (14-12-1059, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
464 N.J. Super. 326
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2020Background
- Defendant Amir A. Aburoumi, a noncitizen who entered the U.S. as a child, pled guilty in 2015 to third-degree aggravated assault in exchange for admission to Pretrial Intervention (PTI) and dismissal of related weapons charges upon successful completion.
- On the plea form and at the plea colloquy defendant acknowledged noncitizen status, was warned by the judge that a guilty plea "may result in [] removal," and defense counsel stated they had discussed potential immigration ramifications and recommended consulting an immigration lawyer.
- Defendant completed PTI and the accusation was dismissed, but his later application for adjustment of status was denied because of his guilty plea; he claimed he thought dismissal meant no immigration consequence.
- In 2018 defendant moved to vacate the plea, alleging (1) counsel was ineffective for allowing/negotiating a plea-as-condition-of-PTI when Guideline 4 to former Rule 3:28 prohibited conditioning PTI on a plea, and (2) counsel failed to advise him that a plea with an admission of guilt would produce certain removal consequences.
- The PCR court denied relief, finding defendant was warned at the plea hearing and had the opportunity to consult immigration counsel; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record is unclear about how the plea-for-PTI term arose and what immigration advice defense counsel actually gave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of conditioning PTI on a guilty plea (Guideline 4/former Rule 3:28) | The State did not "require" a plea; it accepted defendant's counteroffer to PTI with a guilty plea. | The prosecutor/office policy effectively required pleas for PTI on such offenses; Guideline 4 prohibited conditioning PTI on a plea. | Record unclear who proposed the plea-for-PTI term; remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the State impermissibly required the plea; if so, plea may be legally defective. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to advise about immigration consequences | The PCR court and State point to plea colloquy and counsel's statements that potential ramifications were discussed and defendant declined immigration counsel. | Counsel failed to accurately advise that an admission of guilt (even in PTI) would constitute a "conviction" for immigration purposes and lead to certain removal; defendant would have rejected the plea. | Because the immigration consequence was clear under the INA, counsel had a duty to give accurate advice; the record does not show what counsel told defendant—remand for an evidentiary hearing on counsel's performance and prejudice. |
| Whether the judge's admonition satisfies counsel's duty to advise | The plea court warned defendant about possible deportation; that should negate IAC claim. | A judge's general warning is not a substitute for counsel's specific duty; counsel must advise when removal consequences are clear. | The court held judicial admonitions cannot be imputed to counsel; counsel's distinct obligations require a hearing when the record lacks their specific advice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (establishes counsel must inform client when deportation consequences are certain)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (attorney must advise noncitizen defendant of clear deportation consequences of plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.) (clarifies when diversion without admission does not constitute an INA conviction)
- State v. L.G.-M., 462 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div.) (PTI without admission is not an INA conviction)
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (sets Slater factors for motions to withdraw a guilty plea)