State v. Santos
210 N.J. 129
| N.J. | 2012Background
- PCR case where Santos, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child after living with a 14-year-old; removal/deportation consequences discussed at plea and later immigration proceedings.
- Santos was sentenced to time served and lifetime Megan’s Law supervision; DHS removal order issued shortly after sentencing, subsequently reentered the U.S. and was removed again.
- Santos filed a PCR petition alleging counsel failed to inform him of immigration consequences; PCR court granted an evidentiary hearing despite Santos being barred from reentering the U.S.
- PCR court allowed Santos to testify telephonically from Mexico; Appellate Division stayed ruling pending review; this Court granted leave to appeal.
- Court concluded the evidentiary hearing grant was premature and must be reversed/remanded to reassess entitlement under Gaitan and to determine how to address remote testimony with proper safeguards.
- Decision remands for complete reevaluation of Santos’s entitlement to an evidentiary hearing under Gaitan, given later evidence from defense counsel and the need to reassess telephonic testimony.
- Note: The opinion discusses retroactivity of Padilla and Aqua Marine’s two-part test for telephonic testimony, guiding remand for proper application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santos is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Gaitan. | Santos argues misadvice on immigration consequences. | State contends no entitlement absent proper misadvice proof. | Evidentiary hearing must be reevaluated under Gaitan. |
| Whether telephonic testimony satisfies Aqua Marine’s safeguards. | Telephonic testimony necessary due to deportation barrier. | Telephonic testimony risks identity, oath, demeanor, credibility issues. | Telephonic testimony not permitted without satisfying Aqua Marine safeguards; remand required. |
| Whether Padilla retroactivity affects entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. | Padilla applies retroactively to require disclosure of immigration consequences. | Gaitan governs retroactivity; Padilla not retroactive for pre-Padilla pleas. | Page: Padilla retroactivity not controlling; assess under Gaitan. |
| Whether the court properly addressed the defense counsel’s affidavit and new evidence. | New affidavit could show misadvice. | Evidence not previously available; must reconsider. | Remand for full reconsideration in light of new evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (immigration consequences advice required; retroactivity questioned)
- State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (2012) (Padilla not retroactive; Nuñez-Valdéz standard governs pre-Padilla claims)
- State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (standard for misadvice about immigration consequences in PCR)
- Aqua Marine Prod., Inc. v. Pathe Computer Control Sys. Corp., 229 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 1988) (two-part test for remote testimony: consent/exigency and known identity/credentials with integrity)