NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3392-14T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AJIT JAYARAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________
Submitted December 20, 2016 – Decided August 7, 2017
Before Judges Suter and Guadagno.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No.
11-06-0067.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Steven J. Sloan, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Ian C. Kennedy,
Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Ajit Jayaram appeals from the January 9, 2015
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR)
alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel and seeking
a withdrawal of his guilty plea. On appeal, defendant raises
two points:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN DENYING
THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT
HE WAS PROVIDED WITH INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE AS
TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PURSUE A DIMINISHED
CAPACITY DEFENSE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN DENYING
THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT
HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA
BARGAIN TO CORRECT A MANIFEST INJUSTICE.
Finding no merit to these arguments, we affirm the order denying
defendant's petition substantially for the reasons stated by Judge
Paul M. DePascale in his thorough and well-reasoned oral decision
of January 8, 2015. We add only the following brief comments.
On February 27, 2013, defendant pled guilty before Judge
DePascale pursuant to a plea agreement to four charges of a
thirteen-count1 indictment: second-degree health care fraud,
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.3(a) (count two); third-degree Medicaid fraud,
1
The indictment contained fourteen counts but count three
charged only a co-defendant.
2 A-3392-14T3
N.J.S.A. 30:4D-17(a) (count four); first-degree attempted murder
of Radha Ramaswamy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)
(count ten); and first-degree attempted murder of Mukhtar Ahmed
(count eleven). In return for entering these guilty pleas, the
State agreed to recommend that defendant be sentenced on the two
attempted murder counts as second-degree offenses with a
sentence not to exceed nine years, subject to the No Early
Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. As to count two, the State
agreed to recommend a nine-year term, and on count four, a five-
year term with all sentences to run concurrently.
On April 12, 2013, Judge DePascale imposed the bargained-
for sentence. There was no direct appeal but in 2014, defendant
filed a pro se PCR petition. After counsel was assigned, a
brief in support of defendant's petition was submitted, claiming
defendant's plea counsel was ineffective by coercing him into
pleading guilty by not setting forth a diminished capacity
defense. Defendant also claimed his guilty plea was not entered
knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently.
After hearing oral argument on January 8, 2015, Judge
DePascale found that the record "squarely refutes" defendant's
claim that his plea counsel failed to pursue a diminished
capacity defense. Judge DePascale noted that plea counsel hired
an expert to conduct an examination of defendant and prepare a
3 A-3392-14T3
report. Although the expert report did not establish a defense
of diminished capacity, plea counsel appended the report to
defendant's sentencing memorandum in hopes of establishing
mitigating factor four. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(4) ("There were
substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant's
conduct, though failing to establish a defense.").
Judge DePascale also found the record "abundantly clear"
that defendant "voluntarily entered into the plea bargain with a
full and complete understanding of the circumstances then
present." The judge also noted that defendant failed to present
even "a colorable claim of innocence."
We discern no reason to disturb Judge DePascale's findings
which are amply supported in the record before us.
Affirmed.
4 A-3392-14T3