RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2772-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JUAN V. COELLO, a/k/a JUAN CARLOS 

COELLO, JUAN COELLO VELASQUEZ and

JUAN C. COELLO VELASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

Submitted June 18, 2018 – Decided July 6, 2018

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 

16-02-0599.

Howard W. Bailey, attorney for appellant.

Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew 

E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted and charged with a host of offenses. 

In September 2016, by way of a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-2772-16T3

to one count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 

2C:14-2(a)(1), and one count of second-degree endangering the 

welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); the State agreed to 

dismiss the other twenty-one counts. In conformity with the plea 

agreement, defendant was sentenced in January 2017 to a twentyone-year prison term, all of which was without parole eligibility 

pursuant to the Jessica Lunsford Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2.

Defendant appeals and presents the following argument:

THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT 

THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE 

BEFORE DETERMINING IF THE PROSECUTOR HAD 

ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN OFFERING AN INCREASED 

PLEA OFFER TO THE DEFENDANT.

We find no merit in this argument, recognizing that defendant may 

pursue his contentions about what his original trial attorney told 

or advised him (or didn't tell or advise him) about an earlier 

plea offer may be pursued by a post-conviction relief petition.

To expand on this determination, we note that in 2014 the 

Attorney General adopted guidelines for cases governed by the 

Jessica Lunsford Act. Under these guidelines, the initial minimum 

plea offer to someone in defendant's position could be no less 

than fifteen years. The guidelines also incorporate an escalating 

policy after rejection of the initial offer. See generally Uniform 

Plea Negotiation Guidelines to Implement the Jessica Lunford Act, 

L. 2014, c. 7 (May 29, 2014).
3 A-2772-16T3

Defendant contends the prosecution acted arbitrarily and 

capriciously in increasing the plea offer from fifteen to twentyone years. He also contends the trial judge's method for 

ascertaining compliance with the guidelines was flawed.

As for the second aspect of his argument, defendant contends 

the judge erred by taking testimony from the assistant prosecutor

– about both the initial fifteen-year plea offer and defendant's 

rejection of it – without also taking testimony from defendant and 

the attorney to whom the offer was conveyed. Defendant asserts 

that the fifteen-year offer was not conveyed to him and that he 

was not made aware of the Attorney General's escalating plea 

policy. When this argument was posed in the trial court, the judge 

responded that it did not matter and that defendant's contentions 

about what was actually conveyed to him and what was explained to 

him about the guidelines was not relevant to whether the 

prosecution made the initial plea offer or whether the offer 

constituted an abuse of discretion.

We agree. Defendant's contentions regarding his attorney's 

alleged failure to convey a plea offer or the alleged failure to 

counsel him about the consequence of a rejection are questions 

germane only to the effectiveness of counsel. Consequently, we 

reject defendant's argument about the trial court proceedings, as 

well as any other arguments that might be discerned from his 
4 A-2772-16T3

appellate submissions. Questions regarding the effectiveness of 

counsel are best examined and resolved at the post-convictionrelief stage.

Affirmed.