Robber’s Appeal Rejected in 2006 Wildwood Case

TRENTON – A state Appellate Court rejected an appeal, Nov. 12, from an order that denied Joseph A. Ambrosia’s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
The 49-year-old construction worker was sentenced Aug. 28, 2007 to 12 years in prison for robberies of a Wildwood bank and pharmacy June 21, 2006. He is incarcerated at Southern State Correctional Facility with a release date of Sept. 2, 2016.
He was arrested June 23, 2006 as he walked on East Wildwood Avenue in that city. At the time of arrest he was reportedly carrying money believed to have been from the crimes. He had been staying at a Wildwood motel.
He asked the court to consider that the trial court had erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief based on claims of ineffective assistance by his attorney, and that same court improperly denied his petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing.
According to the court:
On Jan. 16, 2007, Ambrosia was indicted for one count of first-degree robbery of a pharmacy, and second-degree robbery of a bank branch.
He signed a plea form pleading guilty to an amended count one of second-degree robbery and count two second-degree robbery June 27, 2007.
The state agreed to recommend that his prison term on both counts be concurrent and not exceed 12 years, subject to 85 percent parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act.
At the next day’s plea hearing, in his presence, trial counsel expressed frustration to the court regarding Ambrosia’s apparent change of mind to accept the plea offer based upon the belief that the state could offer a lesser prison term.
After a brief recess to further consult with his counsel, Ambrosia decided to accept the plea offer. Upon return to the courtroom, he acknowledged under oath that he committed two second-degree robberies and that he knowingly, freely, and voluntarily waived his right to trial.
He also indicated that he had sufficient time to speak to his attorney. Furthermore, in response to the judge’s inquiry, he stated that he understood under terms of the plea agreement, he would be serving a 12-year sentence, and that, pursuant to state law (NERA), he had to serve 85 percent of a 12-year prison term and would be under parole supervision for three years following his release.
At his Aug. 28, 2007 sentencing, the state made a motion for an extended term which was granted.
His attorney argued for a 10-year sentence instead of the 12-year term, “based upon defendant’s drug habit causing him to commit the robberies.”
Ambrosia stated in court, “I would just like to apologize to the courts and let everybody know that I … I fully take responsibility for what I’ve done this time and in the past. And I know I’m looking at a lot of time. I just ask you to consider lowering it . . . .”
He did not express any misunderstanding of the plea agreement. The judge rejected his request for a more lenient sentence and adhered to the plea agreement by Ambrosia to 12 years on count one concurrent with seven-and-one-half years on count two, with the sentences being subject to no early release act.
Ambrosia did not file an appeal immediately, instead, about five years later, May 11, 2012; he filed a “pro se” (representing himself without an attorney) motion to reduce his sentence. The court converted that motion to a petition for post-conviction relief. Assigned an attorney, that person filed new documents.
“Defendant contended he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel: gave him misinformation concerning his prison term; failed to advise him regarding the period of supervised release under NERA; and failed to present arguments in favor of a lesser sentence,” the court wrote.
After oral argument, June 18, 2013, the court rendered a bench decision that Ambrosia “did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied his PCR claim without an evidentiary hearing.”
Further the court noted there was no indication that he had “any misunderstanding as to the plea agreement and the sentence recommendations within that plea agreement.”
In addition, trial counsel vigorously argued the aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors to advocate for a sentence less than the plea agreement.
The court also noted that counsel negotiated a first-degree robbery charge to second-degree robbery, and the 12-year NERA term was favorable in light of defendant’s mandated extended term as a repeat violent offender.
The court stated it was “convinced” that Ambrosia did not satisfy an important fact that his attorney’s conduct “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Because that first point was not validated, his petition could not be further considered.
“At no point during the plea or sentencing was there any indication that (Ambrosia) was unaware of the offenses he was pleading to and the consequences of his plea,” the court wrote.