Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of New Jersey v. Robin C. Pines

December 3, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBIN C. PINES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment Nos. 96-07-0739 and 96-10-0962.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted November 17, 2010

Before Judges Fisher and Sapp-Peterson.

In this appeal of an order denying post-conviction relief (PCR), defendant argues he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he was not informed of the potential for involuntary civil commitment when he pled guilty to a predicate offense in 1999. We reject defendant's arguments and affirm.

On August 3, 1999, defendant entered guilty pleas to two separate indictments. As to the first indictment, defendant pled guilty to second-degree manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4; as to the second, he pled guilty to second-degree attempted aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:1-2(a)(4). Defendant was sentenced on March 2, 2000, to consecutive six-year prison terms that were subject to two-year periods of parole ineligibility.

In December 2004, shortly before his scheduled release date, defendant was involuntarily committed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -- 27.38. We affirmed the order of commitment by way of an unpublished opinion.

Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition on September 14, 2007, arguing he was not informed of the potential for civil commitment when he pled guilty. The PCR judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to examine these contentions and, ultimately, denied the PCR petition by way of a written decision dated November 20, 2008.

Defendant appealed, arguing:

I. [DEFENDANT'S] CONVICTION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ADVISED THAT THE [SVPA] WOULD APPLY TO HIM.

II. APPLICABILITY OF THE [SVPA] TO THE [DEFENDANT] IS A DIRECT, RATHER THAN COLLATERAL, CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA.

III. [DEFENDANT] WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT HIS PLEA HEARING AND SENTENCING. . . .

IV. [DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION] WAS TIMELY FILED BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE [SVPA] UNTIL HE WAS CIVILLY COMMITTED IN DECEMBER 2004.[*fn1 ]

The PCR judge heard the testimony of defendant and his trial attorney in inquiring into the factual question upon which all defendant's legal arguments are based: whether defendant was informed of the consequences of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.