a-1467-13t2 state of new jersey vs. steven grohs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1467-13T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEVEN GROHS,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Submitted January 21, 2015 – Decided January 28, 2015
Before Judges Nugent and Manahan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey,
Law
Division,
Camden
County,
Indictment No. 08-09-2769.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Monique Moyse, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Mary
Eva
Colalillo,
Camden
County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie
A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Steven Grohs, appeals from an order of the Law
Division denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).
We affirm the order denying defendant's PCR petition for the
reasons stated in Judge Michele M. Fox's thorough oral decision
of July 26, 2013.
We add the following.
On September 9, 2008, a Camden County Grand Jury indicted
defendant
for
second-degree
child,
pursuant
to
sexual
contact,
pursuant
attempted
sexual
attempting
N.J.S.A.
to
assault,
to
2C:13-6;
N.J.S.A.
pursuant
lure
or
fourth-degree
2C:14-3b;
to
entice
a
criminal
second-degree
N.J.S.A.
2C:5-1
and
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4); second-degree sexual assault, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4); third-degree endangering the welfare of a
child,
pursuant
to
N.J.S.A.
2C:24-4a;
and
second-degree
endangering the welfare of a child, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:244b.
On
December
15,
2008,
pursuant
to
a
negotiated
plea
agreement, defendant pled guilty to second-degree attempting to
lure or entice a child.
On February 20, 2009, defendant was
sentenced to five years' imprisonment with three years of parole
ineligibility.
Defendant
was
to
register
and
comply
with
Megan's Law and was subject to parole supervision for life.
On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General filed a petition
under
N.J.S.A.
30:4-27.26(b)
seeking
civil
commitment
defendant under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA).
of
This
was predicated upon defendant's conviction, as well as three
Florida convictions for sex offenses against children.
On June 14, 2011, defendant filed a pro se petition for
PCR.
Thereafter, assigned counsel filed a supporting brief.
2
A-1467-13T2
Defendant argues he made a prima facie showing that his plea
attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him of the civil
commitment
consequences
of
his
plea
agreement.
As
such,
defendant argues the PCR judge erred by denying his petition
without an evidentiary hearing.
A "sexually violent offense" is defined under the SVPA as
one
of
several
enumerated
crimes
listed
in
N.J.S.A.
30:4-
27.26(a), or "any offense for which the court makes a specific
finding on the record that, based on the circumstances of the
case,
the
person's
offense
should
be
considered
a
sexually
violent offense," N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26(b).
In State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127, 136-40 (2003), the Court
noted that civil commitment pursuant to the SVPA is not a direct
or penal consequence of a guilty plea for a sexual offense.
Nevertheless, it held that "fundamental fairness requires that
the trial court inform a defendant of the possible consequences
under the [SVPA]." Id. at 138.
The Court directed that "[i]n
the future, prior to accepting a plea to a predicate offense
under the [SVPA], the trial court should ensure that a defendant
understands that, as a result of his or her plea, there is a
possibility of future commitment."
Here,
during
the
plea
Id. at 139-40.
colloquy,
after
the
prosecutor
recited the plea agreement and informed the court that the plea
3
A-1467-13T2
forms had been signed, counsel stated: "[Defendant has] also
circled
the
Commitment.
'Yes,'
to
the
paragraph
that
explains
So I believe that's everything, Judge."
questioned defendant further.
Civil
The judge
Defendant acknowledged he signed
the plea form and four-page supplemental plea form, went over
them with his attorney, and understood everything.
The judge
explicitly noted, "if somebody wants to make a motion to have
[defendant] civilly committed . . . . that's not an issue I'll
be dealing with.
Defense
counsel,
understood.
aware
of
Is that okay?
in
defendant's
Everybody understand that?"
presence,
acknowledged
she
The record clearly supports that defendant was made
the
potential
of
civil
commitment
in
accord
with
Bellamy.
Finally, given the above, the PCR petition was properly
denied without an evidentiary hearing.
State v. Nash, 212 N.J.
518, 541 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459 (1992).
Affirmed.
4
A-1467-13T2