SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3893-19

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PEDRO M. DECASTRO a/k/a

PEDRO DECASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted September 29, 2021 – Decided February 1, 2022

Before Judges Fuentes and Gummer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 06-08-2615 

and 06-12-3935.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen A. 

Pogany, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3893-19

PER CURIAM

Defendant Pedro DeCastro appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief 

(PCR) petition and alternative motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in connection 

with his 2007 convictions for various drug and assault offenses.

In his petition, defendant contended his trial counsel had rendered 

ineffective assistance by misadvising him about the deportation consequences 

of his guilty pleas, failing to file a direct appeal, and failing to file pre-trial 

motions. After hearing oral argument, Judge Martin Cronin ordered an 

evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel had misadvised defendant (i) of the 

immigration consequences of pleading guilty and (ii) concerning any delay in 

filing a PCR application. During the evidentiary hearing, defendant and his trial 

counsel testified. Judge Cronin subsequently issued an order denying 

defendant's petition and alternate motion and a twenty-five-page opinion in 

which he found defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were time 

barred under Rule 3:22-12 and that all of his claims substantively lacked merit. 

Judge Cronin held defendant had failed to meet the Strickland/Fritz test to 

establish his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 51-52 (1987). 

He also denied defendant's alternative motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, 
3

A-3893-19

finding defendant failed to meet the test under State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 157-

58 (2009). 

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:

POINT ONE

MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON HIS 

CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY 

MISADVISING HIM ABOUT THE DEPORTATION 

CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.

POINT TWO

MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF, A 

REMAND OR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON 

HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

BECAUSE HE FAILED TO FILE A DIRECT 

APPEAL.

POINT THREE

MR. DECASTRO IS ENTITLED TO AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT 

HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE FAILED 

TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS.

POINT FOUR

MR. DECASTRO'S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE SET 

ASIDE OR THE MATTER REMANDED FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

POINT FIVE
4

A-3893-19

THE PCR COURT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT 

MR. DECASTRO'S CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE TIMEBARRED BECAUSE ANY DELAY IN FILING THE 

PETITION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT'S 

EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND THERE IS A 

REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT IF THE 

DEFENDANT'S FACTUAL ASSERTIONS WERE 

FOUND TO BE TRUE, ENFORCEMENT OF THE 

TIME BAR WOULD RESULT IN A 

FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Cronin's 

comprehensive, written opinion. 

We add that we discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Cronin's decision 

to limit the evidentiary hearing to defendant's claims about his trial counsel's 

allegedly inadequate advice. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)

(holding "[i]f the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid 

the court's analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief, 

. . . then an evidentiary hearing need not be granted"); State v. L.G.-M., 462 N.J. 

Super. 357, 365 (App. Div. 2020) (holding "[w]e review a trial court's decision 

to grant or deny a defendant's request for a hearing under an abuse of discretion 

standard").

Affirmed.