Deported Camden man wins new trial

The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction of a legal U.S. immigrant deported from Camden to the Dominican Republic after he admitted that he repeatedly sexually assaulted his teenage neighbor.

Attorneys successfully argued that Jose Nunez-Valdez had not been properly warned that by pleading guilty in 1998, he faced deportation.

The judges tossed out the plea, and the case of Nunez-Valdez, who was deported in 2002, may now go to trial.

"This is a big case," said Jason Laughlin, a spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. "We're deciding now how to proceed."

The Dominican native was 36 in 1997 when he was accused of sexually assaulting his 17-year-old neighbor. Although not a U.S. citizen, he had legal residency and lived in Camden with his wife and three children.

Nunez-Valdez was charged with sexual assault and unlawful sexual contact. Had he been convicted of the assault, he could have faced 10 years in prison. Nunez-Valdez pleaded guilty to the lesser offense in exchange for five years' probation.

In court filings, Nunez-Valdez claimed that he asked his attorneys several times whether his plea would raise immigration issues and was told "nothing like that" was ever going to happen.

In 2000, Nunez-Valdez was surprised by a deportation order, and two years later, he was sent back to the Dominican Republic, where he remains. He filed to have his conviction overturned, saying he never would have pleaded guilty had he known the consequences. Nunez-Valdez said his attorneys had pressured him to accept the plea.

In 1996, Congress expanded the grounds for deportation and eliminated some of the judicial review for final deportation orders. Under federal law, a legal immigrant convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a minor must be deported.

Prosecutors argued that court documents signed by the defendant showed that he was properly informed. Nunez-Valdez was asked: "Do you understand that if you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty? Are you satisfied with the advice you have received from your lawyer?"

He answered yes and indicated that he had no questions concerning the plea.

But yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that there was credible evidence "that defendant was misinformed by counsel and that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had received accurate information that his plea would result in deportation."

Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, in his dissent, called the court's findings "factually, legally, and jurisprudentially unsound."