RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4533-18T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WALNER SAMEDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted August 25, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Geiger and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 12-06-

1036.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lisa Sarnoff 

Gochman, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 10, 2020
2

A-4533-18T2

Defendant Walner Samedy appeals from a February 1, 2019 order denying 

his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. 

I.

We derive the following facts and allegations from the record. Defendant 

resided with his girlfriend and her two children in an apartment in Wall 

Township. On the evening of September 13, 2011, defendant arrived home from 

work and noticed L.V.1 babysitting the children; defendant did not know L.V. 

Defendant sat next to her. L.V. alleged defendant sexually assaulted her by 

inappropriately touching her buttocks and engaging in sexual intercourse with 

her without her consent. 

L.V. reported the incident to the police and identified defendant as her 

assailant. The day after the incident, police officers went to defendant's 

workplace and questioned him in the parking lot about the allegations. 

Defendant was not yet under arrest and had not been administered Miranda2

warnings. 

1

 We identify the victim by initials to protect her privacy. R. 1:38-3(c)(12).

2

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3

A-4533-18T2

Defendant was born and raised in Haiti and has limited command of the 

English language. Due to difficulties in communicating with defendant, the 

officers requested another officer who spoke Haitian-Creole to assist. The 

interpreting officer did not translate or explain the request for exemplars form 

to defendant. 

The police asked defendant for a DNA sample by buccal swab. Without 

being told he did not have to consent to providing the sample and had the right 

to consult with an attorney, defendant agreed to the buccal swab. The DNA 

analysis revealed that the DNA specimen from the buccal swab matched the 

DNA sample obtained from L.V.'s underwear. 

In May 2012, a Monmouth County grand jury returned an indictment 

charging defendant with second-degree sexual assault while using physical force 

or coercion, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1) (count one); and fourth-degree criminal 

sexual contact while using physical force or coercion, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b)

(count two). On October 5, 2012, defendant was arrested and was unable to post 

bail. 

Defense counsel did not move to suppress the DNA evidence obtained 

through the warrantless buccal swab. He allegedly advised defendant that it 

would take over two years to get to a trial. Rather than proceed to trial, 
4

A-4533-18T2

defendant entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to 

fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, the State recommended defendant be 

sentenced to time served, without probation, and no contact with L.V. or return 

to the scene of the crime. The State also recommended that the second-degree 

sexual assault charge be dismissed at sentencing. The State had no objection to 

defendant being released from jail after the plea was entered. 

Judge Francis Vernoia conducted a detailed plea hearing. At the outset, 

the exact terms of the plea agreement were set forth. Defense counsel confirmed 

that defendant consulted with immigration counsel—in his presence—to inform 

defendant of the potential immigration consequences of his plea agreement. 

Counsel also stated that he was confident that defendant understood the 

immigration consequences. Counsel confirmed that he reviewed discovery with 

defendant using an interpreter. 

Defendant testified with the assistance of an interpreter.3 He confirmed 

he was pleading guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. Defendant 

stated he completed high school/college in Haiti, where he studied journalism. 

He confirmed he was sober, not on medication, and was not suffering from any 

3

 A Haitian-Creole interpreter was used during all court proceedings. 
5

A-4533-18T2

physical or mental problems that would affect his ability to understand the 

proceedings. 

Defendant also confirmed he reviewed the plea forms with counsel who 

answered all his questions, that his answers on the plea form were truthful, and 

that he signed and initialed the plea form. Defendant acknowledged that he 

understood the charge he was pleading guilty to, the maximum penalty for 

fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, and the recommended sentence. He 

confirmed that he wanted the court to accept the plea agreement. 

Defendant further acknowledged that he was pleading guilty of his free 

will, without being threatened, coerced, or forced to do so. He likewise 

confirmed that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty. 

Finally, defendant acknowledged that he was satisfied with his attorney's 

advice, that his attorney answered all his questions, and that he did not need any 

more time to speak to his attorney about the case or the plea agreement. 

Defendant was in the United States on temporary protective status. After 

acknowledging he was not a United States citizen, defendant confirmed that he 

understood that his guilty plea and conviction may result in his removal from 

the United States and prevent him from re-entering the country. He further 

confirmed that his attorney answered all his questions regarding the immigration 
6

A-4533-18T2

consequences of his plea and conviction and he understood that he had the right 

to seek individualized legal advice on the immigration consequences. 

Defendant also acknowledged the rights he was giving up by pleading 

guilty, including any defenses to the charges and his right to a jury trial. 

Understanding those consequences, defendant indicated he still wished to plead 

guilty. Defendant then gave an adequate factual basis for his plea, admitting 

that he touched L.V. on her buttocks with his hands without her consent for his 

own personal gratification or to humiliate her. Judge Vernoia accepted 

defendant's plea, scheduled a sentencing hearing, and released defendant from 

custody. 

Judge Vernoia also conducted the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel 

stated the presentence report was accurate. Both the prosecutor and defense 

counsel requested that defendant be sentenced in accordance with the plea 

agreement. Defendant elected not to allocute. 

The judge found aggravating factor nine (need to deter defendant and 

others from violating the law), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9); and mitigating factors 

seven (no prior history of delinquency or criminal activity), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-

1(b)(7); and ten (defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to 

probation), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(10). The judge found the aggravating and 
7

A-4533-18T2

mitigating factors in equipoise. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with 

the plea agreement to time served (229 days) without probation, no contact with 

the victim or return to the scene of the crime, and appropriate penalties and 

assessments. The judge then dismissed count one. 

After the sentence was imposed, defense counsel engaged in the following 

colloquy with defendant:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Judge, if I may, I just want to 

confirm, again, that he understands that he does need to 

go seek out an immigration attorney. This was done 

during the plea I know, but I went over it with him again 

that now this is a conviction, he's sentenced, that there 

are going to be some immigration consequences for him 

and that he really needs to get to an immigration 

attorney immediately. 

COURT: Okay. Do you understand that, sir?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

COURT: Okay. If you have any questions about that, 

you can confer with [defense counsel] directly.

Defendant did not move to vacate his guilty plea before or after sentencing

and did not file a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence. 

On November 13, 2017, defendant filed a timely pro se PCR petition. 

Defendant alleged plea counsel failed to advise him that his guilty plea exposed 
8

A-4533-18T2

him to deportation. He contended that if he understood the complete 

immigration consequences, he would not have pled guilty to count two. 

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant and filed an amended 

petition and supporting brief asserting: (1) plea counsel was ineffective in 

failing to file a motion to suppress the results of the DNA testing that matched 

defendant's DNA profile to the specimen obtained from L.V.'s underwear; (2)

the Haitian-Creole interpreter used by the police did not translate the request for 

exemplars; (3) defendant was not informed he could refuse the buccal swab or 

that he could consult with a lawyer; (4) defendant was not advised by plea 

counsel that his guilty plea would prevent him from obtaining meaningful 

employment or public housing; (5) the sex with L.V. was consensual and plea 

counsel failed to convey to the prosecutor that L.V. demanded $50 from 

defendant when the sexual relations were over; and (6) plea counsel unduly 

influenced defendant to accept the plea agreement. Defendant further claimed 

that he and plea counsel did not effectively communicate. 

Defendant noted that he has been detained by Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement twice since his plea and faced additional deportation proceedings. 

Following oral argument, the PCR judge issued an oral decision and order 

denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Without making findings 
9

A-4533-18T2

or providing meaningful analysis, the judge determined plea counsel was not 

ineffective by failing to file a suppression motion because counsel "likely knew" 

defendant voluntarily consented to the buccal swab, making the likelihood of 

success "extremely difficult, if not slim to none." 

The judge concluded defendant had not shown that plea counsel's 

"performance was deficient, the performance prejudiced his defense, or that 

counsel provided him with misinformation or misleading information." He 

further found "counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise of the collateral 

consequences" of the plea and conviction. 

As to defendant's claim that plea counsel failed to inform the prosecution 

that the victim demanded money after engaging in sex, the judge determined 

"there's no evidence the plea counsel even knew about this demand at any point 

during the litigation." 

In regard to defendant's claim that plea counsel erroneously told him it 

would take over two years for the case to go to trial, the judge noted that 

"[d]efendant does not allege . . . he would have pled not guilty and insisted on a 

trial, had counsel not made those statements, nor has he stated why the 

statements are either erroneous or incorrect." 
10 A-4533-18T2

The judge also rejected defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective by 

failing to advise him that deportation would be more likely than not as a result 

of pleading guilty. After reviewing the portion of the plea transcript pertaining 

to the immigration consequences of the plea, the judge noted "defendant had the 

benefit of both plea counsel and an immigration attorney advising him of the 

consequences" of the plea. This appeal followed. 

Defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT ONE

THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED TO THE PCR COURT FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE MR. 

SAMEDY WAS UNAWARE HE WOULD BE 

DEPORTED BY VIRTUE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA.

POINT TWO

THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED TO THE PCR COURT FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TESTIMONY IS 

NEEDED REGARDING PLEA COUNSEL'S 

FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS DNA 

EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED FROM MR. 

SAMEDY, WHICH CONNECTED HIM TO THE 

ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT.

II.

When a conviction is based on a guilty plea, a defendant must satisfy two 

criteria to set aside the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. 
11 A-4533-18T2

Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009). The defendant must demonstrate that:

"(i) counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of 

attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'that there is a reasonable probability that, 

but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would 

have insisted on going to trial.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. 

DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994)). "A reasonable probability is a probability 

sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome." Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Defendant must also show that 

proceeding to trial "would have been rational under the circumstances." Padilla 

v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010); accord Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. at 139. 

A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to 

file a suppression motion must not only satisfy both prongs of Strickland but 

must also prove the motion would have been granted, had it been filed. State v. 

Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 597 (2002) (citing State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 

(1998)). 

"A defendant must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied 

the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) 

(quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999)). In 

order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must establish "a 
12 A-4533-18T2

prima facie case in support of post-conviction relief, a determination by the court 

that there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by 

reference to the existing record, and a determination that an evidentiary hearing 

is necessary to resolve the claims for relief." R. 3:22-10(b). "To establish a 

prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or 

her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, 

will ultimately succeed on the merits." Ibid. 

"A court shall not grant an evidentiary hearing: (1) if an evidentiary 

hearing will not aid the court's analysis of the defendant's entitlement to postconviction relief; [or] (2) if the defendant's allegations are too vague, conclusory 

or speculative." R. 3:22-10(e)(1), (2). 

In addition, defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's 

conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance. State 

v. Eckels, 199 N.J. 344, 358 (2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). 

Strategic choices, made after thorough investigation of the law and facts relevant 

to plausible options, are virtually unchallengeable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. 

III.

Defendant contends he was unaware that he would be deported if he was 

convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. The record belies that claim. 
13 A-4533-18T2

The plea transcript establishes that defendant had discussed the consequences of 

pleading guilty and being convicted of that crime with both plea counsel and 

immigration counsel. The judge also advised defendant that his guilty plea and 

conviction may result in his removal from the United States and prevent him 

from re-entering the country. Defendant confirmed that he understood those 

consequences, did not need additional time to further consult with plea or 

immigration counsel, and wanted to proceed with the plea agreement. He also 

confirmed he was satisfied with the services of plea counsel who had answered 

all his questions. 

Notably, defendant does not contend that plea counsel provided false 

advice or affirmatively misadvised him regarding the consequences of the 

conviction on his immigration status. Rather, he claims that counsel failed to 

advise him that deportation was mandatory for a conviction for fourth-degree 

criminal sexual contact. Defense counsel, the plea judge, and the plea form all 

notified defendant that he was at risk of deportation. Having been notified, 

defendant cannot claim counsel was ineffective. See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 374 

("counsel must inform her client whether the plea carries a risk of deportation"); 

State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 346 (2012) (stating that "defense attorneys now 

must advise their clients of potential immigration consequences of pleading 
14 A-4533-18T2

guilty"); State v. Antuna, 446 N.J. Super. 595, 601-03 (App. Div. 2016)

(concluding that failure to advise a client of the possibility of deportation by 

pleading guilty constituted ineffective assistance of counsel). 

Defendant also argues that plea counsel did not advise him that his guilty 

plea would prevent him from obtaining meaningful employment or public 

housing. These alleged consequences are not direct and penal consequences of 

defendant's guilty plea. Counsel was not required to provide advice regarding 

the collateral consequences of his plea and conviction. State v. Heitzman, 209 

N.J. Super. 617, 622 (App. Div. 1986) (holding that "defendant need be 

informed only of the penal consequences of his plea and not the collateral 

consequences"), aff'd o.b., 107 N.J. 603 (1987); see Pressler & Verniero, Current 

N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1.4.3 on R. 3:9-2 (2020) ("Failure of the defendant to 

understand the collateral consequences of conviction will ordinarily not vitiate 

the plea."). 

Accordingly, the PCR court properly rejected defendant's claim that 

counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the direct and collateral 

consequences of his conviction.

IV.
15 A-4533-18T2

In his amended petition, defendant contends the sex with L.V. was 

consensual; plea counsel failed to convey to the prosecutor that L.V. demanded 

$50 from defendant when the sexual relations were over; and plea counsel 

unduly influenced defendant to accept the plea agreement rather than going to 

trial. Defendant did not brief these issues on appeal. We deem them waived or 

abandoned. See Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n v. Mitchell, 450 N.J. Super. 310, 318-

19 (App. Div. 2017) ("An issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived." 

(quoting Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011))). 

V.

Finally, defendant argues that the buccal swab was taken through invalid 

consent. He points to the fact that the exemplar form, which was printed in 

English, was not explained or translated for him into Haitian-Creole. He claims 

he was thus unaware that he did not have to consent to the buccal swab and had 

the right to consult with an attorney before giving his consent. Moreover, he 

was not Mirandized at that point. 

The PCR court concluded that "counsel was not required to file a motion 

to suppress" because "[c]ounsel likely knew that defendant voluntarily gave the 

DNA swab to the police, making the chances of the motion extremely difficult, 

if not slim to none." On that basis, the court found "counsel could not be 
16 A-4533-18T2

ineffective for failing to file the motion." Viewing the facts in a light most 

favorable to defendant, the record does not support that conclusion. 

We recognize that a buccal swab is minimally intrusive. State v. Camey, 

239 N.J. 282, 311 (2019) (citing Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 463 (2013)). 

However, as explained by the Court in Camey: 

A buccal swab is a common method of law 

enforcement collection of specimen material for DNA 

testing. But, it is also beyond dispute that the taking of 

a buccal swab for the purposes of obtaining a DNA 

sample is a search. And because a buccal swab 

constitutes a search, it must be obtained in a manner 

consistent with constitutional search and seizure 

principles for valid use in a criminal prosecution. 

To pass constitutional muster, a search must be 

conducted pursuant to a search warrant or must fall

within an exception to the warrant requirement. One

well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement

is consent. Obtaining voluntary consent to conduct a

buccal swab is one way to obtain a constitutionally

valid swab without a search warrant. To ensure

validity, warnings given to an individual informing

about the right to refuse consent help the State later

carry its burden to demonstrate that the consent was

truly a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the 

right to be free of such an intrusion. 

[Id. at 299-300 (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted).]

On this limited record, where no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we 

do not attempt to determine whether defendant's decision to provide the buccal 
17 A-4533-18T2

swab was knowing and voluntary. Rather, a remand to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing is appropriate for the parties to present testimony and other evidence in 

support of their respective positions. If the remand court determines that 

defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the buccal swab, the 

State may then assert that the DNA evidence would have been admissible under 

an exception to the exclusionary rule.

We further recognize that the victim identified defendant. This was not a 

random encounter on the street—the victim was babysitting for defendant. It 

may also be that the DNA evidence was not necessary for a conviction had the 

case gone to trial. However, the failure to file a suppression motion to suppress 

the DNA evidence placed defendant in a position where he realistically could 

not win at trial by claiming he did not engage in sex with the victim, exposing 

him to potential second-degree sentencing, including being subject to Megan's 

Law. This effectively limited his defense to a claim that the sex was consensual,

which likely weighed heavily in his decision to plead guilty to count two despite 

the immigration consequences. 

Accordingly, we vacate the denial of defendant's PCR petition as to the 

failure to move to suppress the results of the DNA testing and remand for the 

PCR court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant 
18 A-4533-18T2

knowingly and voluntarily consented to the buccal swab. If the court determines 

he did not, it shall then entertain argument by the State that the DNA evidence 

would have been obtained through inevitable discovery. In so ruling, we express 

no opinion on the likely outcome of the evidentiary hearing or any argument 

regarding inevitable discovery. 

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part for proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.