RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2216-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TYRONE ELLISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted June 6, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez, Nugent, and Geiger.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 

01-06-2564, whose opinion is reported at 448 

N.J. Super. 113 (Law Div. 2016).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank 

J. Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney General/

Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Tyrone Ellison appeals from a September 13, 2016 

order denying his first petition for post-conviction relief 

(PCR). We affirm. 

June 20, 2018

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

June 20, 2018

APPELLATE DIVISION
2 A-2216-16T3

Defendant was indicted for second-degree sexual assault, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c) (count one); third-degree criminal 

restraint, N.J.S.A. 2C:13—2 (count two); third-degree 

endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4 (count 

three); and third-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 

2C:14-3(a) (count four). 

On June 26, 2001, defendant pled guilty to count four, as 

amended, fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-

3(b), in exchange for a recommendation of a five-year 

probationary term, conditioned on not more than 364 days 

incarceration to run concurrently to a sentence defendant was 

then serving, and dismissal of the remaining counts. 

On September 4, 2001, defendant was sentenced in accordance 

with the plea agreement to time served as a condition of five 

years' probation. At sentencing, the judge confirmed 

defendant's conviction did not subject him to Megan's Law, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -19. Neither the judge nor plea counsel 

addressed or mentioned the Sexually Violent Predator's Act, 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38 (SVPA), which became effective in 

1999, during the plea hearing or at sentencing. Defendant did 

not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. 
3 A-2216-16T3

Defendant subsequently violated probation and the court 

resentenced him on April 11, 2003, to a three-year prison term. 

Defendant did not appeal from the resentencing.

In September 2011, the State filed a petition seeking to 

civilly commit defendant under the SVPA, relying upon the 

instant conviction as one of the predicate offenses. Following 

a September 16, 2011 order for temporary civil commitment, the 

court granted the State's petition to civilly commit defendant 

under the SVPA. Defendant remains civilly committed.

On December 24, 2015, fourteen years after entry of his 

judgment of conviction, defendant filed a petition for PCR. 

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant. Defendant alleged 

his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that 

his plea exposed him to the possibility of civil commitment 

under the SVPA, as subsequently mandated by the Supreme Court in 

State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127, 138 (2003). Defendant claimed 

his delay in filing his petition was excusable because he only 

learned of this collateral consequence to his plea when the 

State brought the civil commitment proceedings against him in 

2011. Defendant did not claim counsel gave him erroneous 

advice. 

On August 8, 2016, Judge Russell J. Passamano heard oral 

argument and subsequently issued a September 13, 2016 order and 
4 A-2216-16T3

twenty-eight-page written opinion denying defendant's petition 

without an evidentiary hearing. State v. Ellison, 448 N.J. 

Super. 113 (Law Div. 2016). Judge Passamano held defendant's 

petition was time-barred by Rule 3:22-12(a) and defendant had 

not demonstrated excusable neglect warranting relaxation of the 

five-year time bar for filing a first PCR petition. The judge 

further held an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because 

there were no material facts in dispute and the petition was 

substantively without merit. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant renews the contentions made below, 

raising the following points:

POINT ONE

THE PCR COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT 

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION 

RELIEF WAS TIME BARRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT'S 

FAILURE TO FILE HIS PETITION WITHIN FIVE 

YEARS OF HIS CONVICTION WAS DUE TO EXCUSABLE 

NEGLECT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TIME BAR 

WOULD RESULT IN A FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE.

POINT TWO

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING ON HIS CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF PLEA COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO 

PROPERLY ADVISE HIM THAT THE OFFENSE FOR 

WHICH HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY COULD BE A 

PREDICATE OFFENSE FOR PURPOSES OF CIVIL 

COMMITMENT UNDER THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT 

PREDATORS ACT. 

We find no merit in defendant's contentions and affirm 

substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Passamano's 
5 A-2216-16T3

comprehensive and well-reasoned published opinion. No further 

discussion is warranted. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.