RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2397-17T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.J.C.,

1

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted January 28, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Messano and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Accusation No. 16-09-1025.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Anderson D. Harkov, Designated Counsel, 

on the brief).

Dennis Calo, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Nicole Paton, Special Deputy 

Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and on the brief).

 

1

 We use initials to protect the identities of the victims. R. 1:38(c)(9).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

February 11, 2019
2

A-2397-17T4

PER CURIAM

Defendant R.J.C. appeals from denial of his petition for post-conviction 

relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant pled guilty to a twocount accusation charging him with the June 19, 2016 second-degree sexual 

assault of K.F., an eleven-year-old relative, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and firstdegree aggravated sexual assault of A.D., another female relative who was less 

than thirteen-years old at the time, during a five-year period between 2001 and 

2006. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1). In return, the State agreed to recommend that 

defendant be sentenced to a seven-year term of imprisonment, subject to the No 

Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a), on count one, and that the 

judge sentence defendant as a second-degree offender on count two to a 

concurrent term of seven years imprisonment, also subject to NERA. 

At the plea hearing, a Spanish interpreter was present and translated for 

defendant. Defense counsel elicited a factual basis for both charges, after which 

the judge questioned defendant about his understanding of the terms of the plea 

bargain and waiver of his rights. The judge determined that defendant had 

entered his guilty plea "knowingly and voluntarily." 

Defendant participated in a psychological examination at the Adult 

Diagnostic & Treatment Center at Avenel (Avenel). See N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1. The 
3

A-2397-17T4

report furnished to counsel and the court noted defendant's limited English 

language skills and confirmed the use of an interpreter for the interview. At 

sentencing, after noting defendant's statements during the Avenel evaluation 

conflicted with his guilty plea allocution, the prosecutor requested that 

defendant "indicate whether or not [his denial of the charges in count two] was 

an error and to reaffirm . . . his plea . . . is accurate." The judge placed defendant 

under oath, and defense counsel questioned him again using a Spanish 

interpreter.

Q: You had pled guilty to two counts of an 

indictment against you. Am I correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you were asked a lot of detailed questions 

about the facts that gave rise to that guilty plea. 

Am I correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you acknowledged that you were guilty of 

both the [f]irst [c]ount and [s]econd [c]ount of 

that [i]ndictment. Am I correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Are you asking this [c]ourt today or are 

you telling this [c]ourt that what you said under 

oath at the time of your plea agreement was 

inaccurate in any way? Are you saying that . . . 

the events did not occur?
4

A-2397-17T4

A: No.

Q: Are you asking this [c]ourt today that you want 

to get out of the plea agreement and have this 

matter be put back on the trial calendar? . . . 

A: No.

Q: . . . [D]o you want to be sentenced today?

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: Okay. And I had previously discussed with you 

what the terms of the plea agreement were. Am 

I correct?

A: Yes.

Following this colloquy, the judge sentenced defendant in accordance with the 

plea bargain. Defendant did not file a direct appeal.

Defendant filed a timely pro se PCR petition alleging the ineffective 

assistance of counsel (IAC). Defendant claimed that his counsel never gave him 

discovery, never used a translator, generally misinformed him and failed to 

properly investigate, including obtaining DNA samples from the victim. 

Appointed PCR counsel reiterated these claims in his brief.

Immediately prior to the PCR hearing on November 9, 2017, defendant 

furnished an investigation report detailing an October 2017 interview with, and 

statement given by, defendant's wife, A.J., to a defense investigator. This report 
5

A-2397-17T4

included the investigator's translation of the unsworn and undated statement 

from Spanish to English. It suffices to say that defendant claimed A.J.'s 

statement rebutted a claim made by one of the victims that A.J. entered the room 

while defendant was molesting her.2

After considering the arguments of the prosecutor and PCR counsel, the 

judge denied defendant's petition in a thoughtful and well-reasoned oral opinion. 

The judge entered a conforming order on November 14, 2017, and this appeal 

followed.

Before us, defendant contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing 

because the court documents — the waiver of indictment and plea forms — are 

entirely in English and there is no proof that trial counsel ever reviewed them 

with defendant while using a Spanish interpreter. Defendant also argues that 

plea counsel's failure to use a Spanish interpreter to communicate, and his failure 

to conduct any investigation as a result, demonstrated ineffective assistance. We 

disagree and affirm.

 

2

 In fact, the investigative report and statement do not identify whether A.J.'s 

claim rebutted the account of K.F. or A.D. A.J. denied seeing anything during 

a family gathering on Father's Day, which was June 19, 2016, the date alleged 

in the first count. However, the PCR judge noted that it was A.D., the victim in 

the second count, who claimed that A.J. came into the bedroom while defendant 

assaulted her. 
6

A-2397-17T4

To establish a viable IAC claim, a defendant must show "that counsel 

made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' 

guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment." State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 52 (1987) 

(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). Additionally, a 

defendant must prove he suffered prejudice due to counsel's deficient 

performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. "When a defendant has entered into 

a plea agreement, a deficiency is prejudicial if there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have decided to forego the 

plea agreement and would have gone to trial." State v. McDonald, 211 N.J. 4, 

30 (2012) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); State v. NuñezValdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)). Our Rules anticipate the need to hold an 

evidentiary hearing on IAC claims "only upon the establishment of a prima facie 

case in support of post-conviction relief." R. 3:22-10(b).

Simply put, there is no evidence supporting defendant's bald assertions 

that trial counsel failed to communicate with him or review discovery, and never 

used an interpreter. See State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (a defendant's 

PCR petition must contain "specific facts and evidence supporting his 

allegations"). The records from the plea proceedings and sentencing belie any 

claim that defendant was misinformed about the terms of the plea bargain or was 
7

A-2397-17T4

actually innocent of the charges. The statement secured from A.J. actually 

rebuts defendant's claim that plea counsel failed to conduct any investigation 

because, in her statement, A.J. acknowledged speaking to counsel and providing 

him with the information. Lastly, as the PCR judge correctly noted, nothing in 

the record suggests that but for counsel's deficient performance, defendant 

would have foregone a highly favorable plea bargain and insisted on going to 

trial.

Affirmed.