On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 96-08-0675.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 24, 2009
Before Judges Skillman and Grall.
On August 27, 1996, defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to attempted sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). The State and defendant agreed as part of the plea bargain that defendant would be sentenced to concurrent three-year terms, without any period of parole ineligibility, for these offenses. One of the plea forms executed by defendant acknowledged that one of the consequences of his guilty plea was that he would be subject to "community supervision for life," as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. In addition, the trial court referred to this requirement in taking defendant's plea.
The trial court sentenced defendant on December 13, 1996 in accordance with the plea bargain to concurrent three-year terms of imprisonment. However, the court failed to mention the requirement that defendant was subject to community supervision for life. This requirement was also omitted from the judgment of conviction.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, and he completed service of his sentence many years ago.
On April 16, 2003, the Chairman of the Parole Board sent the trial court a letter which pointed out that the requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 that sex offenders be subject to supervision for life had been omitted from the judgment of conviction. On May 15, 2003, the trial court entered an amended judgment of conviction which included the requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 that defendant was subject to community supervision for life.
More than three years later, on November 17, 2006, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant alleged in that petition that his trial counsel had informed him that he would not be subject to community supervision for life if he pled guilty, and that if he had been told he would be subject to community supervision for life, he would not have accepted the State's plea offer.
By oral opinion and order issued on June 1, 2007, the trial court denied defendant's petition. The court found based on the supplemental plea form for sex offenders executed by defendant and the court's colloquy with defendant at the time of his plea that defendant was aware of the requirement of community supervision for life. It was also brought out during colloquy with defendant that he had pled guilty in 1999 to a charge of a failure to register as a sex offender, which is one component of the community supervision for life requirement for sex offenders. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(c)(1).
On appeal, defendant presents the following argument:
THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM AT TRIAL, BY THE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XXIV; N.J. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 10.
Defendant's argument is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We only note that defendant's petition was not filed until ten years after entry of the judgment of conviction, which was well beyond the five-year period allowed by Rule 3:22-12 for filing a petition for post-conviction relief, and that defendant did not make the showing of "excusable neglect" or "extraordinary ...