RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3301-19

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

V.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Submitted March 2, 2021 – Decided April 23, 2021

Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 14-10-1770.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Suzannah Brown, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (Roseanne Sessa, Assistant Prosecutor, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3301-19

Defendant appeals from a January 8, 2020 order denying his petition for 

post-conviction relief (PCR) after oral argument but without an evidentiary 

hearing.

1

 He contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim 

that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to discuss with him the 

requirements, restrictions, and penalties for violations of parole supervision for 

life (PSL). The record establishes that defendant was adequately advised that 

he would be subject to PSL because of the convictions to which he was pleading 

guilty. Accordingly, we affirm.

In 2014, defendant was charged with seven crimes, including seconddegree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and third-degree endangering the 

welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). In a separate indictment, defendant was 

charged with fourth-degree failure to notify authorities of a change of address 

as required by Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(d)(1). Defendant had been 

sentenced to comply with restrictions under Megan's Law on a prior conviction.

In 2015, defendant pled guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of 

a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), and fourth-degree failure to notify authorities of a 

change of address under Megan's Law. 

1 Given that defendant's convictions involve sex crimes, we use initials in the 

caption to protect privacy interests. See R. 1:38-3(c). 
3

A-3301-19

Before pleading guilty, defendant reviewed, initialed, and signed plea 

forms that expressly informed defendant that the conviction for third-degree 

endangering the welfare of a child would include PSL and what PSL involved. 

During the plea colloquy with the trial judge, the judge confirmed that defendant 

had reviewed and understood those forms, including the form that notified him 

of and discussed PSL. The judge also confirmed that defendant understood what 

PSL was and had no questions. The judge then accepted defendant's guilty pleas. 

Thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to a 

suspended term of five years in prison on the third-degree conviction. 

Defendant was also sentenced to PSL and required to undergo an Avenel

evaluation. See N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1.

Defendant did not file a direct appeal. Instead, in 2019, he filed a petition 

for PCR contending that his plea counsel was ineffective in failing to fully 

explain PSL to him. Judge Mitzy Galis-Menendez, who was the same judge 

who accepted defendant's guilty plea and sentenced him, heard oral arguments 

on defendant's PCR petition. On January 8, 2020, Judge Galis-Menendez issued 

a written opinion and order denying defendant's PCR petition. In her opinion, 

Judge Galis-Menendez correctly identified the governing law concerning a 

showing of ineffective assistance of counsel and when an evidentiary hearing is 
4

A-3301-19

warranted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); accord

State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland standard in New 

Jersey); R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); State v. 

Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992). She also correctly reviewed the record 

and summarized how it rebutted defendant's contention.

On appeal, defendant argues:

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

[DEFENDANT'S] PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT 

TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY 

FAILING TO DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS, 

RESTRICTIONS AND PENALTIES FOR 

VIOLATION OF PSL WITH HIM.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we reject this argument 

substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Galis-Menendez in her wellreasoned and thorough written opinion.

Affirmed.