State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3448-18T4 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LESLIE D. HILL, a/k/a LESLIE W. HILL, LESLIE HILL and LESLIE BUNDY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
Before Judges Messano and Hoffman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 16-04-0227.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michele A. Adubato, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David M. Galemba, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant Leslie Hill appeals from the January 14, 2019 Law Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant collaterally challenges his conviction, after a guilty plea to first-degree aggravated manslaughter.
Because we conclude that defendant, in the course of his plea allocution, did not present a sufficient factual basis of guilt, we reverse. In reaching this conclusion, we apply the principles set forth in State v. Urbina, 221 N.J. 509, (2015). We conclude 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 (1995); State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 577-78 (1992); State v. Belton, 452 N.J. Super. 528, 530 (App. Div. 2017).
On February 8, 2016, Kyana Roman called 9-1-1 because A.C., her two-year-old daughter, was not breathing. When officers from Salem City Police Department arrived at Roman's apartment, A.C. was unresponsive. Approximately one hour after the 9-1-1 call, A.C. was pronounced dead at Salem Memorial Hospital. While no injuries were visible at the time of death, an autopsy revealed multiple blunt force injuries to A.C.'s spine, head, and internal organs.
Defendant, Roman's boyfriend, was also present at the scene when police arrived and voluntarily gave a recorded statement to Salem County Prosecutor's Office (SCPO) investigators, admitting no wrongdoing. After the autopsy, police called Roman and defendant to be interviewed at the Salem City Police Department. Before defendant's interview, however, police learned defendant had an outstanding warrant for an unrelated matter.
At the start of the interview, police read defendant his Miranda1 rights. During the approximately three-hour interview, defendant admitted he "slammed" A.C. on the couch, caused her to fall, and "wrestl[ed]" with her during the evening of February 7, 2016. While putting A.C. in "yoga positions" - pushing her legs behind her head - defendant heard a loud "pop" and A.C. began crying. He subsequently took A.C. upstairs and placed her in her bedroom. At no point during this interview did defendant invoke his Miranda rights.
On April 27, 2016, a Salem County Grand Jury returned an indictment, charging defendant with one count of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1); two counts of second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); and one count of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a).
On June 29, 2016, defendant's plea counsel filed a motion to suppress defendant's second statement to law enforcement. However, counsel withdrew the motion on September 2, 2016 and requested "the pre-trial conference remain as scheduled to permit counsel to continue off-record plea negotiations." Defendant eventually accepted the State's plea offer. Under the plea agreement, defendant agreed to plead to an amended charge of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, and the State agreed to recommend defendant receive a twenty-five-year prison term, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and dismissal of the remaining charges.
At his plea hearing on December 5, 2016, plea counsel engaged defendant in the following colloquy:
While defendant may have admitted to reckless conduct, he was not asked to admit that his conduct was done "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference" to human life, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1), i.e., that it was probable, not possible, that death would result. Notwithstanding this omission, neither the prosecutor nor the judge asked any additional questions to establish the key element of aggravated manslaughter.2
On January 20, 2017, the same judge sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a twenty-five-year prison term, subject to NERA, and dismissed the remaining charges. Defendant appealed his sentence to an excessive sentence oral argument (ESOA) panel, which affirmed the sentence. State v. Hill, No. A-002678-16 (App. Div. June 5, 2017).
On January 3, 2018, defendant filed a pro se petition for PCR. Assigned counsel filed a brief in support of the petition, asserting that 1) there was an insufficient factual basis for the amended charge of aggravated manslaughter; 2) plea counsel was ineffective for failing to explain the aggravated manslaughter charge and failing to investigate third party guilt; and 3) counsel improperly withdrew the Miranda motion.
On January 14, 2019, a different judge heard oral argument on defendant's PCR petition at a non-evidentiary hearing. The PCR judge issued a written opinion denying defendant's petition on January 18, 2019, finding defendant's argument that the factual basis was insufficient was procedurally barred by Rule 3:22-4, because it could have been raised on direct appeal, and was otherwisewithout merit, and that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal followed.
Defendant raises the following argument on appeal:
THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM PLEA COUNSEL.
PCR is the vehicle through which a defendant may, after conviction and sentencing, challenge a judgment of conviction by raising issues that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, therefore, ensures that a defendant was not unjustly convicted. State v. McQuaid, 147 N.J. 464, 482 (1997). Pursuant to Rule 3:22-2(a), a defendant is entitled to PCR if there was a "[s]ubstantial denial in the conviction proceedings of defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey."
We review the trial court's denial of PCR de novo. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004) (). We also review de novo a decision whether a defendant has provided an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea.State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393, 403-04 (2015). "An appellate court is in the same position as the trial court in assessing whether the factual admissions during a plea colloquy satisfy the essential elements of an offense." Id. at 404.
When seeking PCR, a defendant may challenge the adequacy of the factual basis of a guilty plea. Urbina, 221 N.J. at 527. Our decision on this appeal is largely guided by Urbina.
In Urbina, the defendant - a juvenile waived up to adult court - attempted to plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter. But, in the course of his allocution, he asserted that he reached for his firearm only after the victim began to reach for his own. The defendant "just wanted to have [the victim] back up," but his automatic weapon "just went off." Id. at 516. Defense counsel then stated that he had discussed a potential self-defense claim with his client and advised him that it was not "particularly viable." Id. at 517. In response to the prosecutor's request, defendant's plea form was amended to state that he was waiving self-defense. Ibid. Without reviewing the nature of a self-defense claim, or the State's burden to disprove self-defense, the court then asked Urbina, "And you do know . . . by pleading today, you've waived any potential utilization of self-defense, correct?" Ibid. Defendant answered yes, and the court accepted the plea as providing an adequate factual basis. Id. at 517-18. After this courtaffirmed the conviction on direct appeal by a divided panel, State v. Urbina, No. A-1761-11 (App. Div. July 19, 2013) (slip op. at 2), the Supreme Court reversed. Urbina, 221 N.J. 509.
In reversing, the Court reaffirmed New Jersey's adherence to the principle that a defendant must provide a comprehensive factual basis for a plea, addressing each element of the offense. Id. at 526-27. "[I]n New Jersey, '[e]ven if a defendant wished to plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, he or she may not do so.'" Id. at 527 (quoting State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408, 415 (1990)).
"A factual basis may be challenged by a petition for post-conviction relief, as well as by a motion to withdraw a plea, or by direct appeal." Belton, 452 N.J. Super. at 537 (citing Urbina, 221 N.J. at 528). "In short, if a factual basis has not been given to support a guilty plea, the analysis ends and the plea must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial