### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0100

- 17T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. JERRY A. JONES, Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted October 16, 2018

– Decided Before Judges Rothstadt and Natali. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Unio n County, Indictment No. 12

- 12

- 0865. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Amira R. Scurato, Designated Counsel; William P. Welaj , on the brief). Michael A. Monahan , Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

October 26, 20182 A

- 0100

- 17T3

Defendant Jerry A. Jones appeals from a July 31, 2017 order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentia ry hearing. We
affirm. On March 1, 2013, by negotiated agreement, defendant plead ed guilty to one first

- degree and two second

- degree sexual assault offenses , and one fourth

degree count of criminal sexual contact. The State agreed to dismiss the remainin g twenty

- one counts of the indictment and recommend ed an aggregate thirteen

- year term in prison subject to the No Early Release Act , N.J.S.A. 2C:43

- 7.2

. Defendant appealed and an excessive sentencing panel affirmed defendant's
sentence. State v. Jones , No. A

- 0644

- 13 (App. Div. Jan. 14, 2014). On June 9, 201 6 , defendant filed a pro se PCR petition and an amended petition on February 15, 2017, which he supplemented by appointed PCR
counsel's February 6, 2017 brief and May 1, 2017 letter

. Before the PCR cour t , defendant maintained he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and was "innocent of [the] charges . . . [ but ] was coerced by trial counsel to plead guilty." PCR counsel added that defendant was denied effective assistance because "[trial] cou nsel failed to competently prepare defendant's case" and "conduct a full and complete pre

- trial investigation ", including interviewing witnesses, which would have demonstrate d that a guilty plea was unwarranted.3 A

- 0100

- 17T3

Further, in his May 1, 2017 letter to the PCR court, PCR counsel asserted that defendant's petition should be granted because "he established a colorable
claim of innocence and he has strong grounds to withdraw his plea" under the test set forth in State v. Slater , 198 N.J. 145 ( 2009 )

. At oral argument, however, PCR counsel explicitly advised the court that he was not making a motion to
retract defendant's guilty plea but merely cited Slater "in conjunction with the argument that the guilty plea [was not] voluntary." The PCR court deni ed defendant's petition for reasons detail ed in a comprehensive oral decision. T he court noted that defendant failed to present any evidence, by way of certification or otherwise , to support his claim that trial counsel failed to investi gate his case. As to defendant's claim that trial counsel failed to interview central witnesses, the court noted that defendant failed to identify specifically any such witnesses. Further, the court explained that defendant's claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty was nothing more than a b a ld, unsupported allegation and was belied by the plea colloquy whe re defendant admitted his guilt, gave a detailed factual basis for the crimes, stated his plea was given v oluntarily without coercion , and was satisfied with his

c ounsel's representation

. The court also denied defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing.4 A

- 0100

- 17T3

Defendant appeals, arguing:
POINT I
THE POST

- C ONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN DENYING TH E DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION REL IEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL. We find insufficient merit in defendant's argument s to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11

- 3(e)( 2), and add only the following brief comments.
As for defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he was unprepared for trial and coerced him to enter the plea , the PCR court correctly applied the Strickland / Fritz 1 test and concluded that defendant only made unsupported assertions expressing his subjective belief about the state of counsel's preparation. Defendant failed to supply a certification that specifically
i dentified anything in the record that established a prima facie case of
ine ffectiveness or otherwise suggest ed the need for an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Marshall , 148 N.J. 89 , 158 (1997).

1 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) ; State v. Fritz , 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987)

.5 A

- 0100

- 17T3

Further, defendant's claim that counsel coerced his guilty plea is belied by the colloquy between the trial court and defendant during the plea hearing. The
trial judge patiently and carefully reviewed the matter with defendant who acknowledged that he understood he was waiving his right to trial . Defendant also affirmed that no one forced him to enter into the plea agreement or to plead guilty. Finally, defendant's reliance on Slater is misplaced. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be made before sentencing, "but the court may permit it to be made therea fter to correct a manifest injustice. " R

. 3:21

- 1. Here, defendant never filed a motion to with draw his guilty plea and when the PCR court inquired of PCR counsel if his May 1, 2017 letter was a request by defendant to withdraw his plea, PCR counsel expli citly stated it was not. Thus, we reject any attempt by defendant to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Zaman v. Felton , 219 N.J. 199, 226

- 27 (2014). However, even were we to address the issue substantively , our review of
the record confirm s there is no basis under Slater to vacate defendant's plea

. Nowhere in the record does defendant establish a colorable claim of innocence and as we have detailed, any claim that defendant was coerced into entering his plea is baseless. F inally , the plea was on extremely favorable terms for6 A

- 0100

- 17T3

defendant . Thus, neither Slater n or Strickland /Fritz provide any support for defendant to withdraw his negotiated plea.
Affirmed.