## 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 In September 2016, by way of a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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 twenty
one - 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 present s 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 T O THE DEFENDANT. We find no merit in t his 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 thi s 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. T h e guidelines also incorporate an e scalating 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 twenty
o ne years. He also contends the trial judge's method for ascertaining compliance with the guidelin es was flawed.
As for the second aspect of his argument, defendant contends
t he judge erred by taking testimony from the assistant prosecutor

– about both the initial fifteen
- year plea offer and defen dant's rejection of it

– without also taking testimo ny from defendant and
the attorney to whom the offer was conveyed. Defendant asse rts that the fifteen
- year offer was not conveyed to him and that he
was not made aware of the Attorney General's escal ating plea policy. When this argument was posed in the trial court, the judge responded that it did not matter and that defendant's conten tions 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 contenti ons regarding his attorney's alleged failure to convey a plea offer or the alleged failure to counsel him about the consequenc e of a rejection are questions germane only to the effective ness of counsel. Consequently, we reject defendant's argument about the trial court proceedings , as well as any other arguments that migh t be discerned from his4 A - 2772
- 16T3

appellate submissions. Questions regarding the effectiveness of counsel are best examined and resolve d at the post
- conviction
relief stage. Affirmed.