STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OLVIN A. AGUILAR (17-08-0880, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-1056-19
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Sep 21, 2021Background
- A Middlesex County grand jury indicted Olvin A. Aguilar for second-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child based on sexual conduct with M.H. in June 2016 (M.H. was under 18).
- Nine months later Aguilar pled guilty to third-degree child endangering, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), in exchange for dismissal of the other counts; his factual allocution admitted sexual conduct with M.H. while she was under 18 and acknowledged such conduct can impair or debauch a child’s morals.
- The State had recommended three years’ imprisonment with lifetime parole supervision and Megan’s Law registration, but the plea judge sentenced Aguilar to three years’ probation and 364 days in county jail.
- About two years after sentencing, deportation proceedings prompted Aguilar to move to withdraw his plea, arguing the plea lacked an adequate factual basis (initially citing the wrong rule, but asking the court to decide under Rule 3:21-1 for post-sentencing withdrawal).
- The motion judge (not the plea judge) applied the Slater factors, concluded Aguilar’s allocution supplied an adequate factual basis (no additional aggravating facts or caretaker relationship required), and denied withdrawal as not constituting manifest injustice.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division applied de novo review limited to whether the plea record contained an adequate factual basis and affirmed, relying on precedent construing the child-endangering statute to require only sexual conduct that would impair or debauch a child’s morals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of factual basis for guilty plea to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1) | Plea allocution admitting sexual conduct with a minor and acknowledgment it can impair/debauch morals satisfied statutory element | Allocution was too vague: he only admitted sexual conduct with a person under 18 and did not describe conduct that would impair or debauch morals | Held: Adequate — allocution sufficiently admitted sexual conduct that would impair/debauch the child’s morals; plea stands |
| Whether child-endangering requires elements of sexual-assault statutes (force, coercion, age-gap, caretaker status) | State: Legislature did not incorporate sexual-assault elements into the child-endangering statute; only sexual conduct that would impair/debauch morals is required | Defendant: Without force, coercion, or caregiving relationship, convicting under endangering conflicts with sexual-assault statutes and due process | Held: Rejected — statute’s language is broader; no need to import sexual-assault elements or caretaker requirement |
| Procedural standard for plea withdrawal (Rule 3:9-3(e) vs Rule 3:21-1 / Slater) | Motion judge correctly evaluated post-sentencing withdrawal under Rule 3:21-1 and Slater factors | Defendant initially cited pre-sentencing standard (Rule 3:9-3(e)) but conceded review should be under Rule 3:21-1 | Held: Motion properly considered under Rule 3:21-1; appellate review limited to whether factual basis was adequate (de novo) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (Slater four‑part test governs post‑sentence plea withdrawal)
- State v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540 (definition of "sexual conduct" includes sexual assaults and contacts)
- State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393 (de novo review when the sole issue is adequacy of factual basis for plea)
- State in Interest of D.M., 238 N.J. 2 (juvenile adjudication under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1) does not require penetration, force, or age-gap elements)