NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1365-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT LEE EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted December 6, 2018 – Decided December 18, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 89-02-0257.
Robert Lee Edwards, appellant pro se.
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Laura C. Sunyak, Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Robert Lee Edwards appeals from the September 22, 2017 Law
Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an
evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
In 1990, defendant pled guilty to first-degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-
1(b); first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(3); two counts
of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; and two counts of second-degree
burglary/attempted burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. On August 31, 1990, the trial
court imposed an aggregate sixty-year term of imprisonment with a thirty-year
period of parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed his sentence, and we
affirmed. State v. Edwards, No. A-1046-90 (App. Div. May 16, 1991). The
Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Edwards, 126 N.J. 339 (1991).
This appeal involves the denial of defendant's eleventh PCR petition. In
his petition, filed on January 21, 2017, defendant argued the court should grant
him the same relief as in State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127 (2003), namely the
withdrawal of his guilty plea, because he was unaware of the possibility of civil
commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-
27.24 to 27.38, and the State defrauded him by allowing him to plead guilty
without knowledge of the possibility of civil commitment. The PCR court
A-1365-17T1
2
denied the petition as time-barred under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2), and procedurally
barred under Rule 3:22-4 and Rule 3:22-5. On appeal, defendant reiterates the
argument made to the PCR court.
We review a judge's decision to deny a PCR petition without an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super.
387, 401 (App. Div. 2013) (citing State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 157-58 (1997)).
However, where no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we "may review the
factual inferences the court has drawn from the documentary record de novo."
State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016). We also review de
novo the trial court's conclusions of law. Ibid.
We have reviewed defendant's argument in light of the record and
applicable legal principles and conclude it is without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the
reasons expressed by the PCR court. However, we make the following brief
comments.
The Court decided Bellamy in 2003, thirteen years after defendant pled
guilty and fourteen years before he filed his eleventh PCR petition. As to
retroactivity, the Court held:
the rule announced in today's decision-that prior to
accepting a guilty plea to a predicate offense, trial
A-1365-17T1
3
courts must inform defendants of possible
consequences under the [SVPA]-shall be applied in this
case and those cases pending in which the defendant
has not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review.
[178 N.J. at 143.]
By 2003, defendant had exhausted all avenues of direct appeal. Accordingly,
defendant is not entitled to retroactive relief under Bellamy.
Affirmed.
A-1365-17T1
4