SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2906-20

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDRE F. OLIVEIRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted June 7, 2022 – Decided June 20, 2022

Before Judges Fisher and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 18-03-0353.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the

brief).

Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-2906-20

Defendant was charged in an indictment with various drug offenses and 

pleaded guilty in November 2018 to first-degree maintaining or operating a 

controlled dangerous substance production facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4. On 

February 1, 2019, in accordance with a plea agreement, the trial judge imposed 

a ten-year prison term with a three-year period of parole ineligibility.

Defendant did not file a direct appeal but instead, on August 26, 2019, 

filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, arguing his trial attorney 

failed to: adequately advise him of the penal consequences of his guilty plea; 

explain the Brimage1 guidelines; review discovery with him so he could make 

an informed decision about accepting a plea offer or going to trial; move for the 

suppression of evidence and the suppression of statements he gave to police; and 

sufficiently advise him about his appeal rights. The PCR judge denied the 

petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant appeals, arguing:

I. [DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIMS THAT 

HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO FILE 

A DIRECT APPEAL THAT HE OTHERWISE 

WOULD HAVE TAKEN AND BY FAILING TO 

ADVISE HIM ADEQUATELY DURING THE PLEA 

PROCESS SO THAT HE COULD MAKE AN 

1 State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1 (1998).
3

A-2906-20

INFORMED DECISION ABOUT PLEADING 

GUILTY OR GOING TO TRIAL.

II. THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY RULED 

THAT [DEFENDANT'S] CLAIMS WERE 

PROCEDURALLY BARRED.

We agree with the PCR judge that defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing and not entitled to relief because there is no genuine factual dispute 

about the adequacy of the advice rendered. Because of that ruling, we need not 

consider whether the PCR judge properly found defendant's ineffectiveness 

claims procedurally barred.

The trial record itself reveals there is no merit in any of defendant's 

ineffectiveness claims. Defendant argues he was insufficiently advised about his 

criminal exposure, but the judge explained to him that the offense to which he 

was pleading guilty ordinarily called for a prison term between ten and twenty 

years and that the State had agreed to offer a sentence "at the bottom of the 

range." As for the claim that counsel did not review discovery with him, 

defendant was, in fact, asked about that during the plea hearing and 

acknowledged counsel had, in fact, reviewed with him the evidence and the 

police reports.

Defendant claimed that his trial attorney never filed any motions on his 

behalf, but the attorney had filed a suppression motion and the trial court was 
4

A-2906-20

prepared to begin hearing testimony on that application when defendant agreed 

to accept a plea offer that was the minimum that could be imposed (and less than 

called for by the Brimage guidelines) for the charge to which defendant agreed 

to plead guilty.

And, while the failure of an attorney to file a direct appeal when requested 

is a sound basis for post-conviction relief – in the form of allowing a direct 

appeal to be heard out of time, State v. Carson, 227 N.J. 353, 354 (2016) – the 

record here, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, reveals that he was 

represented by privately-retained counsel who advised that if defendant wished 

him to file an appeal on his behalf, defendant would be required to pay him. 

Certainly, private counsel was not obligated to file an appeal without having 

been compensated as he sought. But defendant was also advised at the time – as 

demonstrably revealed by the appeal rights form he signed – that if he could not 

afford counsel for an appeal, an attorney would be appointed for him. Defendant 

has shown nothing to suggest he requested court-appointed counsel, let alone 

proof that he asked either his trial attorney or an appointed attorney to file an 

appeal on his behalf.
5

A-2906-20

Finding no merit in any of defendant's arguments, and without reaching 

defendant's second point, we reject the contention that defendant was entitled to 

an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.