State v. Belton, DOCKET NO. A–0971–16T1
| Decision Date | 26 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A–0971–16T1 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Anwar H. BELTON, a/k/a Hason Belton, a/k/a Hason Lyon, a/k/a Anwar Belton, a/k/a Anwar Beltron, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (John J. Santoliquido, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Sabatino, Ostrer and Whipple.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
OSTRER, J.A.D.
Defendant Anwar H. Belton appeals from a September 14, 2016 order denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Defendant collaterally challenges his conviction, after a plea, of first-degree aggravated manslaughter.
We reverse. We conclude that defendant, in the course of his plea allocution, suggested a defense of others that was inconsistent with guilt; his waiver of that defense was not knowingly made; therefore, he did not present a sufficient factual basis of guilt. In reaching this conclusion, we apply the principles set forth in State v. Urbina, 221 N.J. 509, 115 A.3d 261 (2015), although that case involved a claim of self-defense, rather than the defense of others, suggested in the course of a guilty plea. In view of defendant's contemporaneous claim of innocence, the failure to elicit a sufficient factual basis was of constitutional dimension and warrants PCR. See State v. D.D.M., 140 N.J. 83, 95, 657 A.2d 837 (1995) ; State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 577–78, 601 A.2d 198 (1992).
Defendant was indicted and charged, along with a woman named Erika Pugh, also known as "Sparkles," with murder, theft from the victim, and endangering an injured victim. Pugh was also charged with prostitution. Defendant was offered an agreement to plead to an amended charge of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, in return for a recommended twelve-year prison term subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43–7.2, and dismissal of the remaining charges.
In his allocution, defendant contended that he was roused from his sleep in an Atlantic City motel by frantic requests for help by Pugh and another woman. Both women were involved in an altercation with a man. When the man began biting down on Pugh's hand, refusing to let go, defendant said he put the man in a headlock to get him to release Pugh's hand. The man relented only after he began "snoring." The man died soon thereafter.
In the plea colloquy, defense counsel first established that Pugh woke defendant, who admitted he had only met Pugh that night. We quote the colloquy at length:
Defendant then described his effort to defend Pugh, as the victim bit her hand:
Defense counsel then attempted to elicit defendant's admission that he acted with indifference to human life. Defendant insisted that he was "trying to stop [the victim] from hurting" Pugh.
The prosecutor elicited that defendant disregarded the risk that he might cause the victim's death:
As the judge began to say he was satisfied with the allocution, the prosecutor interrupted to express his concern that defendant may have expressed a defense of others:
[PROSECUTOR:] Judge, maybe the court—I mean from what he is saying there's the possibility that there's a defense of others. As long as he understands he's waiving that possible defense in order to take the benefits of this plea agreement. So I don't know if the court can maybe inquire about that.
The judge then asked defense counsel if she had talked to her client about that defense. She admitted she had not. The judge conducted an off-the-record conference at the bench. After a break of unknown duration, the court went back on the record, whereupon defendant purported to waive the defense.
The judge found that defendant's plea was freely and voluntarily entered and satisfied the elements of aggravated manslaughter. Notably, at the subsequent sentencing hearing, defendant stated he was reluctant to enter the plea agreement, and reiterated that he acted in Pugh's defense. The court sentenced defendant in accord with the plea agreement. On direct appeal, we affirmed the sentence on an Excessive Sentence Oral Argument calendar, but remanded for a correction of jail credits. State v. Belton, No. A–0389–14 (App. Div. May 6, 2015).
Defendant thereafter filed a "motion for post-conviction relief" and a motion to withdraw his plea, pursuant to Rule 3:21–1. He contended:
In a counseled brief, defendant contended:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fair
... ... innocence."); State v. Belton , 452 N.J.Super ... 528, 530 (App. Div. 2017) ("In view of defendant's ... ...
-
State v. Valloreo
...the plea is not necessarily of constitutional dimension and thus does not render illegal a sentence imposed without such basis." Belton, 452 N.J.Super. at 540 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 577 (1992)). But, "a contemporaneous claim of innocence alters th......
-
State v. Reyes
... ... conviction and to render his sentence illegal"), ... with State v. Belton, 452 N.J.Super. 528, 540-41 ... (App. Div. 2017) (granting PCR where the defendant provided ... ...
-
State v. Hill
...and warrants PCR. See State v. D.D.M., 140 N.J. 83, 95 (1995); State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 577-78 (1992); State v. Belton, 452 N.J. Super. 528, 530 (App. Div. 2017).I. On February 8, 2016, Kyana Roman called 9-1-1 because A.C., her two-year-old daughter, was not breathing. When officer......